A Most Unsatisfying Ending

The conclusions you came to were the ones which had also occurred to me. And who in their right mind would want to end up where Floyd Landis sadly is? LA’s cataclysmic announcement did one unintended bit of good though, it overshadowed Floyd’s court appearance Friday (in which he agreed to repay those Who felt defrauded by the FFF ) the irony is unsettling.

Ultimately, Armstrong had little if anything to gain by continuing, and perhaps a lot to lose. Right now, his actions will probably change few if any minds: those long convinced of his guilt will continue to hold that belief, those who are convinced of his innocence will also remain unchanged, and those waiting to see the evidence before deciding will have to wait.

In the long run, I doubt that we will ever get real closure. Larry indicated, if I read him right, that USADA is likely to want a closed hearing, if any of the other related cases go that far. And even if Bruynel and co. do go to open arbitration, how much Armstrong specific evidence would we get? And would cross examination of witnesses who had something to say about Armstrong be as vigorous as it might be if Armstrong were there? Bruynel might just be willing to say “sure, Lance doped, but I had nothing to do with it”.

Whether Armstrong was guilty or not, he had little chance of winning. The results of a USADA hearing were virtually guaranteed to go against him. Even had he won there, the lack of double jeopardy means that USADA could appeal the decision. He knows whether or not he cheated, so what USADA, or UCI, or whoever says the results from those years are, he knows.

Am I allowed to think him a cheat and a champion? I don’t really want to get into a long rambling of all my thoughts and feelings, partially because they wouldn’t make much sense or follow much logic. But I’m a little worn out on all the doping charges and not too sure I care too much anymore considering the state of most sports. For me, Lance won all his tours, Floyd won, Alberto won, Penn State won all those games, as did USC and Ohio State. If I start eliminating in my mind all the athletes in cycling who may have been a little dirty, I’m not left with much. And in the end, sports are entertainment to me and I just want to be entertained by some sports before I have to go back to work again. Maybe not the best attitude, and it really isn’t my full attitude, but it helps keep me calm.

Rant, there’s much here to comment upon, but I want to focus on something that many seem to be missing.

You say that the Armstrong announcement makes for an “unsatisfying ending”. In this I think you express what a lot of people think, that what we need most is for the truth to come out: Armstrong confesses, or he proves that he didn’t dope, or Tygart proves that he did dope. If we know what really happened, then we could strike a blow against the dopers, or we could reform the anti-doping system.

On this point, we gain nothing by pointing a finger at Armstrong. The point is, we NEVER learn the truth. Never. Landis has “confessed”, and Hamilton has “confessed”, and now Vaughters has confessed. Riis confessed, Andreu confessed, Millar confessed, Erik Zabel confessed, Rolf Aldag confessed, Patrik Sinkewitz confessed (once), Ivan Basso confessed (to intent, but not to actually doping). What have we learned from these confessions, other than a bunch of top riders have doped?

Answer: we have learned nothing else. We don’t know where the riders get their dope, or how they transport their stored blood. We don’t know who are the dope suppliers, where are the lines of supply, who is financing the operations, who is making a profit. Is the dope coming from Big Pharma, or are cyclists getting their dope from China and other third world suppliers, or is the dope being manufactured in people’s garages, like crystal meth? Who (outside of a couple of shadowy figures, like Dr. Michele Ferrari and Dr. Eufemiano Fuentes) is masterminding these doping operations, teaching riders how to dope and avoid detection? Do cycling teams still have doping programs, or are they effectively requiring cyclists to dope on their own, or are cyclists doping in spite of the efforts made by teams to prevent them from doing so? If the latter, what team efforts to prevent doping are regarded as most effective by the dopers themselves?

It is disturbing that with all the confessions we’ve received from doping cyclists, we don’t know more about how doping happens. Sally Jenkins NAILED this point in her August 24 column for the Washington Post – she pointed out that the Balco drug investigation was “the only so-called drug investigation in which the manufacturers and the distributors were given plea deals in order to throw the book at the users.” Jenkins calls this “big-game hunting”, a case of “careerist investigators trying to put athletes’ antlers on their walls.” Jenkins’ critique applies equally to the ADAs. The ADAs seem to care a great deal about how a tennis player or para-athlete might ingest cocaine in a bar, and not so much about how a track star or cyclist might purchase EPO. In the Landis case, we learned more about Greg Lemond’s history of childhood abuse than we did about who supplied Landis with his synthetic testosterone, and taught him how to use it, and profited as a result.

If the ADAs cared about bringing doping in sports to an end, they would act like serious, legitimate fighters against drug abuse in general: they would go after the suppliers. They would cut doping products off at their source. They would go after the manufacturers, dealers, suppliers, middlemen and pushers. This is easy to do, comparatively speaking: we’re not talking about the universe of people who might abuse heroin or crack cocaine – we’re talking about the handful of folks who ride bicycles or run track or swim laps in Olympic style training facilities. If the ADAs cared about ending doping in sports, they would use confessed dopers as a resource to figure out how to deny would-be dopers the means to dope.

Rant, you of all people can see the big picture. If Armstrong confessed, we would not have a “satisfying ending”. We’d simply be able to add his name to the long list of confessed dopers. Armstrong would become another individual who made the wrong individual choice, who made a bargain with the devil in exchange for a few extra watts of power on the bike. The system that enabled him to dope would remain untouched. That’s what I call an unsatisfying ending.

We have had several federal,investigations here in the US, from the Mktchell Report, through Bonds and Clements to Armstrong. We did succeed in closing the Balco Lab, but that was more of a middle man than the ultimate source of PEDs. The Feds have considerable powers for investigation. So, were they more interested in hanging big name scalps on the wall, and ignore the issues Larry raises, or we’re they unable uncover any information about the high end of the supply chain? We’re not having much luck with recreational drugs either.

I once, quite a while ago, interviewed for a job with the DEA. If I understood correctly the description, the job would have been to monitor records of drug companies to see if all their production could be accounted for. I assume that similar positions exist today. But of course, whether PEDs in sports or recreational drug, we have an international problem, which is likely to require an international solution.

Depending on how the rest of the case proceeds, we may find out how a doping program might have worked on the USPS team. This might or might not shed light on how things might have worked on other teams at the time USPS was active. Things have changed since then. And different sports may have different situations.

About juridication on Bruyneel, Marti or foreigners or people without a sport licence, USADA and other (or most) ADA has the power to “exclude” them indirectly. That is done by excluding or sanctionning sport organisations or teams that will use them as athletes or as managers, trainers,…
That is the reason which has pushed Bruyneel to challenge USADA charges.

Rant, you wrote that “if the only result of the case against Armstrong were a confession or a conviction on charges that he used performance enhancing drugs and we got nothing else”, then “we wouldn’t be any further along in figuring out how to effectively stop (or, more realistically, minimize) doping in sports.”

That is precisely my point. That result is the only result USADA ever cared about, the only result that WADA ever pursues. Worse, it’s the only result that most of US seem to care about. Look at all the interviews of Landis and Hamilton, by top journalists like Bonnie Ford, 60 Minutes and Paul Kimmage. Look at Vaughters’ editorial confession in the New York Times. The focus is always, and damn near exclusively, on the individual athlete doper: what pressure did he feel to dope, and when did he start doping, and how did he feel about his doping, and what did he experience when he got caught?

For Landis and Hamilton, there’s always been one other question: did Armstrong dope? But to my knowledge, no one ever asked Landis and Hamilton about any other of their teammates (Landis gave up Pereiro’s name, of course).

There is a reason that our focus is as narrow as it is. Putting this as nicely as I can: the goal of the ADAs is to perpetuate the myth of clean sport, the myth that what we watch on the road (and at the stadium, and in the arena) is a test of personal ability, personal will and personal character. When I use the word “myth”, I don’t deny that the myth is true to an extent. I use the word “myth” because we hold our belief in the transcendent value of clean sport to the exclusion of all facts to the contrary.

The myth perpetuated by the ADAs is to see doping as a problem caused by the athlete, as a flaw in the mind, heart and soul of the athlete that must be corrected through the right combination of disincentives, moral instruction and (ultimately) bans for those not pure enough to carry their banner forward. And of course, this is PART of the problem. But it’s not the entire problem, and the approach here is not the approach we take to solve problems outside of sport. For example, if our town has a rash of jewelry robberies, we may increase the penalties for jewelry robbery. We might also lock up the jewelry store, and post an armed guard at the store door, and remove the jewels after hours to a safer location.

The ADA myth does not lead us to think about how to PREVENT athletes from doping. The myth is best served by having athletes nobly decide not to dope. We’re willing to influence this decision. We’re strangely uninterested in eliminating the option to dope. We’re strangely uninterested in the decisions made by those outside of organized sport.

We can see the absurdity of the myth when we look at the story told about Landis’ doping in 2006. If we are to believe the story, then Landis doped as a solitary agent: he procured his own dope, and transported it from race to race, and self-administered the dope according to doping protocols he created himself. This is entirely unbelievable, of course: Landis possesses a high-school education and is probably just a bit smarter than average. To make this story believable, we all know that people like Landis have personal coaches and advisors, and we figure that Landis doped with the help of such people. But oddly, we don’t care to find out who these people were, or how they helped. We don’t even care to see those people punished. Why? Because of the myth. We want to imagine that Landis’ crime against clean sport resulted from his individual and personal failure.

Yes Rant, you are correct, Armstrong was charged by USADA with conspiracy and trafficking. These are the same charges examined by the federal prosecutors, who dropped the case against Armstrong, presumably for lack of evidence. Let’s be real here. We’ve heard Landis, and Hamilton: Armstrong is accused not only of doping, but of leadership in a team that had a doping program, in encouraging others to dope, even in providing others with dope on an occasional basis. This is NOT what lawyers mean by trafficking, or even conspiracy. But it’s significant in terms of the myth: it means that Armstrong’s alleged crime was something more than the personal decision to dope, that he took an active role in his alleged doping and in his teammates’ doping. But this is no more than the myth taken a small step further, the realization that one person’s moral failure can lead to the moral failure of others. Allegedly, Landis and Hamilton and Vaughters and Andreu doped because they failed, but also because Armstrong failed.

But it’s absurd to believe that Armstrong personally purchased drugs, or personally transported them across international borders, or personally crafted doping protocols for his team – just as it is absurd to imagine that Landis did the same thing for himself as an individual, and just as it is absurd to imagine that Armstrong’s alleged offenses somehow transcend those of other doping cyclists. Instead, the Armstrong case falls squarely within the ADA myth: he is the biggest dog in the pack, and if USADA hits him squarely on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper, that will send a message to every other cyclist in the peleton. But no message would be sent to the people who actually supply the dope, or transport it, or profit from its use. That was never the intent.

The fact that USADA are going after Armstrong (and his alledged associates) with their grocery list of offenses (conspiracy, trafficing, etc) and asking for a lifetime ban tells me that this is a vendetta. As Larry pointed out there are MANY people involved when any one athlete dopes. But you sure don’t seethe doping organizations going after all those people… only the athlete pays when caught…he gets his ban and that is that. Once the ban is over, he is welcomed back into the fold with open arms, pure as the driven snow, and thus forgiven.

For ANY athlete to dope there HAS to be a conspiracy and trafficing…the athlete needs to GET the dope from somebody…is he doing it personally, sneaking around in dark alleys carrying a briefcase full of cash? Does he get it thru a trainer? A Dr? And who sells the stuff? Where do THEY get it from? What COUNTRY? Once purchased, it has to be delivered by somebody TO somebody, and eventually to the athlete…and as Larry has pointed out, is the athlete then using these drugs w/ NO supervision/instruction sitting in a dark hotel closet?

And then, where is all the mecidal paraphanilla coming from? And where does all the used hardware go? Obviously not just into the trash in the hotel. So SOMEBODY has to transport the ‘evidence’ and dispose of it so it never sees the light of day. And obviously it’s all a HUGE secret…so these very same conspiracy/trafficing charges could be leveled against ANY doping athlete.

But no, only Armstrong has drawn the ire of USADA so forcefully.

But hey…look on the bight side…now that he has been pronounced guilty of all these crimes by USADA everything is better! The peleton is now CLEAN, as quite obviously he was the only one doing it! We can all rejoice! The devil has been found and cast-out! HOORAY!

Just as a diversion, here’s another opinion piece:

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8310275/armstrong-worth-honoring

I’m not saying whether or not I agree in whole or in part, just posting things to give an idea of how opinions are or are not swayed by all this.

Matt C, thanks for reminding me that in addition to supplying the dope, someone also has to supply the medical paraphernalia, and dispose of the medical waste. Isn’t it odd, Matt C, that with all those confessions wrangled by USADA and the other ADAs, we don’t have a CLUE how any of this goes on, under the noses of WADA, despite the evident interest of the French police? Sure, we get some odd story every now and then from a crusading (or half-crazy) dumpster-diving journalist who claims to have discovered something bad in the alley behind the motel where Armstrong was sleeping. If Tygart was something other than the self-serving self-promoting headline-grabber that many think he is, wouldn’t you suppose that he’d show some public interest in how athletes are able to dope, and how athletes could be cut off from their doping supplies?

I think Matt C has illustrated the point better than I have. We know that dopers aren’t riding around France with EPO in their saddle bags. No cyclist could afford to be caught with so much as a hypodermic needle. In order to dope during a Tour de France, someone is bringing the dope and necessary equipment into the motel room of the doping athlete, and someone is removing all that stuff after the dope is used. Or someone is setting up a room of his own in that motel, or somewhere else, where the athletes are receiving their pharma assist.

Remember that during a Tour, it’s easy to control who has access to a rider. 6-8 hours a day, they’re on the road in plain view of the public and the TV cameras. Post-race, they are access-controlled at least until they pass through doping control. They are then on team buses, or elsewhere in public until they land at their hotels. Their whereabouts are known to all. Moreover, we’re talking about a tiny population of users. If we understood how doping happens, we could cut the dopers off from their dope, at least during the course of a race.

The fact that this effort has never been made is telling.

This whole Anti-Doping effort is much akin to a Dr. treating a symptom, with no effort being spent on finding the cause. Until WADA gets serious with rooting out the suppliers and couriers, nothing will change (and just this thought…how about some good old accounting?? These doping programs must cost a LOT, and the money has to come from and go to somewhere…sponsors dollars just disappearing into the void would be a serious red flag…teams should be able to account for every dollar).

I don’t know if it would work, but if someone were ‘caught’ doping, their deal is this: full disclosure of every detail (who/what/where/how-much, who helped, EVERYTHING) or a lifetime ban. Give-up all this info, and it’s a 1 year ban. Pretty soon there would be nobody willing to be the supplier/courier/helper, as THEY would be getting the real punishments, knowing the athletes pretty much have to rat them out.

But sadly, I still don’t think this would work…the lure of fame and fortune is just too great, and athletes are human. It’s still quite obviously a risk worth taking, or the peleton would be clean. And I think as in most crimes, the criminals are 1 (or more) steps ahead of the good guys trying to stop them, because the good guys have rules (usually).

IF Lance DID do all of these things that he is accused of, then the current anti-doping system is a total waste of time and money…..as he (and his entire team it sounds like) did these things over and over for his 7 year domination of the peleton (allegedly…I’m still waiting for that pesky PROOF thing…you know…proven FACTS that are beyond reproach).

IF all this is upheld in the end, I would think WADA AND USADA would be extremely embarrassed and should be completely overhauled (or replaced) due to their utterly pathetic success rate of catching dopers. They certainly had lots of chances, and as far as we KNOW, they got zilch.

Rant: “Armstrong’s choice not to fight USADA was probably the best option he had.”

Really sad. Lance Armstrong had the option to tell the truth. He is a drug user, a drug trafficker, and a drug pusher . . . . and you still defend him.

This is cancer in sports, literally.

Larry, you used Armstrong’s vindictive arguments to personally attack Travis Tygart and the USADA but you really have no understanding of their case. You write: “The myth perpetuated by the ADAs is to see doping as a problem caused by the athlete . . . .” You really never understood the very basics about this case from the beginning and kept insisting that this had to do with lawyering, which now obviously it never did and never will.

Larry: You are still lecturing Jean C. You are so far out of your depth. You state: “Remember that during a Tour, it’s easy to control who has access to a rider.” You really do not have the foggiest idea about cycling, professional or amateur. Armchair lawyering and pretending to be the ruler of cogency only yields confusion and obvious silliness.

This is not about “closure”. It is about “due process”. Due process is being served.

There is no chance that this case against Lance Armstrong will drag on for years. The only reason it dragged on this long is because Lance Armstrong’s lawyers did all they could to drag it on as long as they could. They simple ran out of options (no matter what any silly lawyering says).

Lance is not done fighting, just as he is not done lying and cheating.

There will, however, be many more cases against Lance Armstrong. Likely eventually the Federal case will be reopened against him. It is just unimaginable that the US Government will allow him the fraud.

Rant, you wrote: “If you go back and think about what WADA was formed to do, their initial charter wasn’t to root out the suppliers and enablers and doctors and others who helped athletes dope. They were set up to try to catch cheating athletes, in order to protect the Olympic brand.”

There is a sense where I agree: according to a certain way of seeing the anti-doping effort, what we’re dealing with is a problem of cheating, where doping is like a false start in a track race or roughing the passer in American football. I think there are certain people in sports who hoped that WADA would operate like this, where a cyclist would pee into a machine that would analyze the results on the spot and hand the rider a yellow or red card if the pee tested positive. So, the primary WADA message has been clean sport, play clean, don’t cheat.

But anti-doping expanded this primary message many years ago. Probably the clearest indication of this broader effort is the nearly world-wide adoption of the International Convention against Doping in Sport. According to UNESCO (the United Nations entity that adopted this convention for international adoption), the Convention helps to ensure the effectiveness of the WADA Code by applying the force of international law to anti-doping, because “there are specific areas where only governments possess the means to take the fight against doping forward.” While national governments have “a degree of flexibility” in how they implement the Convention, signatory governments are required to take specific actions to restrict the availability of prohibited substances and methods to athletes, and take measures against trafficking.

To be sure: the Convention exists because of the limited power of agencies like WADA and USADA. I do not expect Travis Tygart to kick down doors, raid drug warehouses or engage traffickers in “hot pursuit”! But again according to UNESCO’s anti-doping site, UNESCO and WADA are supposed to be working in concert to combat doping – it is my understanding that one of the main reasons we have the Convention is because WADA wanted it. Moreover (according to WADA’s web site), WADA initiated in 2006 “a strategy to work with government, law enforcement and anti-doping agencies to ensure evidence gathering and information sharing.” As an example: per WADA’s web site, WADA works with Interpol, the world’s largest police organization, to tackle doping, “in particular in the areas of evidence gathering and information sharing.”

In other words: we’re long past the day where WADA’s and USADA’s mission could be seen purely in terms of clean sport. WADA has worked to transform the area of anti-doping into an area governed by international law, an area that national governments are required to address in their criminal statutes and police activities. This brave new world is in large part WADA’s creation, and in this brave new world it is perfectly fair to ask what USADA is doing to “root out the suppliers and enablers and doctors and others who help athletes dope.” Per WADA’s own materials, the number one thing that USADA should be doing is gathering information about those suppliers and enablers and doctors, and then sharing that information with WADA and law enforcement authorities.

We keep batting back and forth the five other people charged by USADA. Maybe this is evidence that USADA gives a damn about the suppliers and enablers and doctors, but at BEST this is the FIRST evidence we’ve ever seen of this concern. More realistically (in my view): if USADA gave a damn about the suppliers and enablers and doctors, then they’d be going after the suppliers and enablers and doctors who served Landis when he rode for Phonak, and the suppliers and enablers and doctors who served Hamilton when he rode for CSC, Phonak and Rock Racing. By “go after”, I don’t mean that Tygart should be macing or handcuffing anyone. I mean that when USADA has a Floyd Landis before it, a guy who is willing to trade information for a reduced doping sanction (or the best plea bargain anyone ever received for admitted federal wire fraud), USADA should be pumping that Floyd Landis for everything he knows about those doctors and enablers and suppliers. And so long as Trygart is so eager to tell us his opinions of Armstrong, he might also share with us how it is that a guy like Landis managed to dope successfully for years without anyone figuring it out.

So long as I’m on a rant, I’ll say something else: I find particularly objectionable USADA’s failure to pursue the enablers of the dopers at Rock Racing – this was a U.S. team, based in the U.S. and racing under a U.S. Continental license, a team nearly everyone thought was dirty at the time, a team that seemed to go out of its way to hire ex-doping cyclists, a team with at least two cyclists caught doping (Hamilton and Kayle Leogrande) – and surprisingly, a team with plans to race again in 2013. Presumably, Frankie Andreu (ex-Rock Racing director – who may have quit because he wouldn’t go along with Rock Racing’s plans to dope) would have an interesting story to tell USADA.

Rant, it would be great if USADA’s case against Bruyneel et. al. is the beginning of a greater effort by USADA to fulfill its mission under national and international law to go after doping enablers and traffickers, and to gather and share information about these activities. But the evidence so far is that USADA only cares about the immediate circle around Armstrong. They’ve had many opportunities over the years to prove otherwise, and so far they’ve dropped each and every one of these opportunities.

Jean C, the testing you’d like to see UCI perform could also be performed at WADA’s direction. I suspect that WADA does not request these tests because they have not authenticated the protocols for these tests. If you want to run a CERA test on urine frozen for years, you have to have authenticated a CERA test on long-frozen CERA samples. The question of archiving athlete samples for testing years down the road has been discussed for quite some time, and I know that Christiane Ayotte (for one) thinks it is impractical.

Jean C, you always make good points, but your portrayal of “good WADA” and “bad UCI” isn’t convincing to me. UCI has no power to direct a WADA lab to destroy samples, and if such a thing took place, the fault lies with the WADA lab as well as UCI. Moreover, if UCI did any such thing, that would be a violation of the WADA Code, and WADA should have prosecuted. That’s not “doing their best”, is it?

I do not believe that riders ever “mostly doped by themselves”. This is the point I made to Rant: the ADAs have an obligation under national and international law to gather information about doping and share it with law enforcement officials. When a Landis or Hamilton shows up at USADA willing to make a deal, that’s the time to get the information law enforcement needs to cut would-be dopers from their sources of drugs, medical supplies, waste disposal and expertise.

Larry,
CERA test was used at 2008 TDF and they have caught Ricco, Beltran,… It was validated during GIRO, so UCI could have ordered the retesting of samples in Septembter for exemple. If WADA had the power to retest, they would have used it.
Frozen should not be a problem, EPO can only disapperear, and they probably have done some tests on short period.

I have much less confidence in UCI because there is a lot of exemples of their bad behaviours, especially on doping issue. I cannot see any significant point on WADA side.
About the request of destruction of samples, that was samples before WADA rules, that was one of the reason to improve those rules.

If athletes dont want to rat their providers, that often means that they think they are or feel responsible of what has been done.

Jean C, quite right, the CERA test is validated for testing samples taken in competition. The test must also be validated for testing samples stored for limited periods after competition, since someone did CERA retesting a few months after the 2008 TdF, and this testing nailed Stefan Schumacher, Bernhard Kohl, and Leonardo Piepoli. There was also CERA testing that took place a number of weeks after the 2008 Olympics.

From what I’ve read, CERA can be detected using either blood or urine testing, though it works a lot better in blood testing, and I understand that the 2008 TdF CERA testing was done on urine samples and confirmed with blood samples. I don’t know about the testing you refer to that UCI refused to order, but perhaps the protocol then was to test both blood and urine, and there was some problem with the availability of one rather than the other.

As for testing frozen samples … there is always a potential problem with testing samples that have been in storage for a long time. This is particularly the case when blood is being stored — remember, that’s how Tyler Hamilton was able to keep his gold medal after he tested positive for blood doping — his B sample blood had been frozen and could not be thawed and tested.

If we’re looking at EPO testing … remember that the body makes EPO naturally, and the testing is designed to distinguish natural from synthetic EPO. As I understand it, to test for EPO, a preparation of the athlete’s sample is placed on the edge of a blotter and then subjected to the pull of an electrical field. The EPO migrates across the blotter, and EPO isoforms — different types of the same proteins — leave deposits in a banded pattern that the testers can analyze. Some bands are more associated with synthetic EPO, and some more with natural EPO. But there is considerable overlap, and depending on who you read, the interpretation is either easy for a skilled scientist or it is difficult to perform under the best of circumstances. My guess is that over the years, the scientists have gotten better at EPO testing, since there used to be much more controversy about EPO testing than there is now.

But the question we’re looking at here is whether EPO testing can be performed on long-frozen urine samples. The answer depends, again, on who you read. All seem to agree that EPO testing can be thrown off (in other words, the banding I discussed above can be affected) if the urine is not properly stored. Even Jacques De Ceaurriz, the scientist who developed the first EPO test and is a strong proponent of the validity of EPO testing on frozen urine samples, has stated that EPO is stable in frozen urine “as long as the samples have been well cared for.” But other scientists have expressed stronger reservations, and have said that in order for EPO testing of long-frozen samples to be scientifically valid, scientists would have to show that a control sample containing synthetic EPO frozen for many years would give the same banding pattern as a similar “fresh” sample. Again, the question is not about the stability of the EPO itself, but about the stability of the various isoforms that produce the banding pattern analyzed in the tests.

I admit that I don’t understand all the science here. The main thing I’m reporting is that different scientists view this question differently.

The next question is whether the various labs store blood and urine samples over long periods in a “well cared for” way that might allow for EPO testing. Christine Ayotte, head of the Montreal WADA lab, says that any program of testing frozen urine samples would require equipment and storage beyond her lab’s current capabilities — including what she described as “a whole new wing of freezers, with restricted access and backup compressors for the refrigeration.” Ayotte says that developing such a system to store samples “would be a waste of money and energy.” While you might disagree on the question of money and energy, it’s significant that Ayotte does not believe that she currently has the ability to store samples reliably over a long period.

One last note: my understanding is that CERA was detected by means of a chemical signature added by the pharma manufacturer, and not by the usual “banding” test. So the stuff we know about EPO testing may not apply to CERA testing.

On TDF, they had used the 2 methods for more accuracy, and most probably to compare them on real cases. CERA is a big molecules that pass into urines while body is physicaly stressed. So the blood test is probably more likely used for OOC testing, urine tests could be enough for difficult stages. We should remember that Ricco didnt test positif at each stage despite having taken CERA, a long term effect EPO, before TDF.

On long time frozen urine samples, the only problem is to lose positive samples, no one will become false positive.
Blood cannot be stored too long because of degradation of itself, so they cannot use it for biological passeport measurement. But what about CERA within blood on long frozen period?

BTW, in the while, Italian Justice has seized those GIRO samples and should have restested them (or some of them) for their cases. Probably we will hear about them when their criminal investigations have been finished, sport being second priority in such case.

About UCI, Lance, in fact US POSTAL case, is probably a meaning to bend UCI towards cleaness!

Liggett: Thanks for the reminder. Even better than his mastery of London slang was what happened 2 days later:

Wiggins in The Guardian on Friday morning, 13 July: “I don’t care what people say, the attitude to doping in the UK is different to in Italy or France maybe, where a rider like Richard Virenque can dope, be caught, be banned, come back and be a national hero.”

Wiggins to a news conference on Friday afternoon, 13 July, after David Millar wins the 12th stage of the TdF: “David Millar is a national hero.”

Read the Wiggins sickening blog in The Guardian of 13 July. He does not say a word against doping. He only says what would happen if he was caught. Reads just like Floyd Landis or Lance Armstrong before being caught.

If you really believe Wiggins won this year’s tour clean and Sky wasn’t doping, then watch this interview: http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozone/MG_Tour/MG_vive_le_velo/Tour2012_dag_1/1.1374958

Doping is more rampant in professional cycling now than ever before.

William: Great link. Hamilton moved up the release of his book from Lance Armstrong’s birthday to Pat McQuaid’s birthday. Moving up the ladder. How appropriate.

Jean: One would want to agree that somehow the case against Lance & Co. would affect UCI. Unfortunately, UCI owns the arena and Lance is still just a gladiator, even if he was given part owner rights. Mostly likely UCI will throw him under the bus and cut off its ugly head, Pat McQuaid, but it will be back to business as usual.

More interesting was the move yesterday by La Fédération française de cyclisme (FFC) http://www.ffc.fr/com/imgAdmin/_Actualites/2012/Communique_Amstrong.pdf

This is a strong move. Most importantly regarding UCI, ASO, and USA Cycling. Too much to explain, but Jean you will understand.

Jean: Do you see a way out? Is it possible to create a Truth and Reconciliation Process for cycling?

[Larry: You don’t know law, you don’t know science. You come here to smear US institutions and good people who do their job or tell the truth. You sell unabashedly the Lance PR: “there must be some legal loophole or something wrong with the science.” Lying and cheating in sports is destructive to America’s youth. Supporting it and bashing those who would clean up sport is unjustifiable.]

LauraLyn,

I believe that reconciliation process could only works for something happening outside normal situation, like a war or a civil war. In those case, there is a clear line that has been drawn between the 2 contexts. For sport, that would be a date line, nothing strong enough for people to stop them, that will only last a few years. We have seen similar thing with political corruption, they agreed to change, but nothing changes or just a little progress.

I have more hopes with a system build like society : testing and prosecution clearly independent of sport federations.

With the release of Tyler’s book, the world of cycling should be shaken, especially UCI. Probably the (ex)women of UCI would have their say : Sylvia Schenk or Annie Gripper! That should affect IOC too with Verbruggen. A lot of the rotten apples are strongly together connected, everyone havong some prooves against others, but at one time heads should roll to preserve the rotten core. I would bet that Verbruggen would go down and get some money to stay quiet.
As result, we would have down one or 2 steps further.

BBC has announced that USADA will release evidence against Armstrong. So we have to wait now.

There is a rule in WADA code that give them power to do so in case of an athlete lying about his case. With Armstrong trumpeting in Canada that he won 7 TDF, he probably has broken that rule.

Rant:

Your link for the BBC story just takes me back here.

Larry: Lance has personally attacked Travis Tygart and USADA. He has laughed in the face of American justice (Montreal being but one small incidence – he just happened this time to do it to cancer survivors [stupid move]).

Still, USADA is not in a big hurry to “release evidence” as BBC suggests. Lance will fall all by himself now, with or without evidence.

Rant: UCI will receive (has received) a “reasoned decision”. Again, evidence is what you get in court. The UCI has no right to ask for the evidence, and they will not receive it.

The UCI is responsible for turning over the evidence they have on Lance & Co. to USADA. This is according to the WADA code. USADA has requested that evidence and WADA has made it clear they need to turn it over. Likely UCI will send USADA only some meaningless paper.

UCI has no choice but to accept the decision and implement the sanctions. It has no other avenues open to it.

Rant:

Thanks for fixing the link. It was interesting that USADA says they developed their case against Armstrong completely independent of the DOJ probe.

WS, your thoughts are good ones. The problem with your first thought is that the non-analytical positive is well established at this point. The problem with the second idea (or maybe this is the point behind the second idea) is that the false negative rate in doping testing is extremely high. In either case, the sad fact is this: it means next to nothing for an athlete to pass a doping test.

William,

USADA is going after Lance because of many reasons, the first being probably corruption. By shooting down Lance, USADA is putting a lot of pressure on UCI which should have done it’s job in 1999 (failed corticoïde test) and maybe 2001 for a failed EPO test as alleged by Hamilton and Landis.

As I know, Lance has never been accused to use drugs that didn’t exist in that time. Maybe a confusion with drugs that could not been tested at that time. It has been reported too that Lance used drugs that were still in trial experimentation, hemassist as exemple.

During blood doping years, we have seen 2 speeds for racing and a biased UCI doping control management.
That has been a lot of victims! Lance could have escaped if he had not made his comeback, he would not have been caught for blood doping in 2009 and 2010.

Well, now that people have had some time to respond, here are my thoughts:

I don’t totally agree with the idea that if you passed the tests as they existed at the time, then you’re home free. I do think that until you have had a chance to defend yourself, no official action (results stripped, suspension, etc.) should take place, with one exception I’ll get to in a moment. Just because we think a rider doped, or some author or journalist thinks so isn’t enough. Certainly take a look at whatever evidence a journalist or author might develop/uncover.

I do think there should be a statute of limitations, and that it should not be retroactively extended. We can argue at length as to how long SOL should be and whether or not there should be any exceptions, and if so, what they should be; but beyond a certain point it seems just vindictive to me to attempt to prosecute, and that there are diminishing returns in terms of any potential disincentives gained. YMMV.

Whether or not Armstrong failed any tests which have been covered up by UCI or any other organization I won’t get into. But in general, what do we expect an athlete to say? If he or she is being accused by non-analytic means, of course up to that point in time, they almost assuredly have passed all tests. Maybe because they were clean; maybe because they had some high-tech doping program designed to evade existing test, and maybe because they were just plain lucky. A non-positive test is just that, and basically, will look the same in any of the 3 scenarios I mention above.

There is the question of “suspicious” results that don’t meet the current criteria for a positive result, but which some “expert” claims are “consistent” with doping. The nature of many of these test are such that there is no clear “bright line” to separate clean from dirty; so we have to somewhat artificially make a line. There can be and probably is considerably discussion where to draw this line, and in part it depends on whether you are willing to possibly have some clean athletes who test positive as the price to pay to ensure you get more of the dopers, or are willing to have some dirty athletes get by in order to get fewer false positives. This is a philosophical question in which your opinion is probably just as valid as mine. No system is perfect and whatever it is, there are probably both some false positives and some false negatives. However, once we (in the form of some official organization) draw that line, then we must honor it.

An interesting turn of events:

http://www.indystar.com/usatoday/article/57593548

Trying to find other sources for this info, because the article doesn’t make sense, like THE FIRST LINE. I think they intended to say that 23 other state senators requested for Calfornia to investigate USADA. But, why CA?

Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible for an athlete to really prove they are clean. A negative test result at best shows you were clean on a particular day, and perhaps for some prior period of time, but then we know that some athletes have tested negative but were still dirty. And if you weren’t tested at a particular event, there’s little way you can show you were clean.

If facing a specific accusation, like an associate saying “I saw Joe doping when I was at his apartment in Colorado on September 5, 2012″, an athlete might be able to say ” Couldn’t have happened, I was in California at the time, here’s proof.” but then if you don’t have an alibi, or the accusations are more general, you have little chance to do anything but deny the accusations.

So, in many ways, an athlete’s claim to have always tested clean, assuming it is true, is rather like a character reference: someone who is willing to say he doesn’t think the accused is capable of doing what he has been accused of.

Of course, much the same holds true for accusations: it is often really hard to prove that X did see Y doping when any sort of hard evidence exists. We may decide who we believe based on how reliable we think someone is, or perhaps on how their story matches our preconceived notions. I have the feeling that many people made up their minds long ago about whether or not Armstrong doped and that all the happenings of the past year or so have done little to change their minds.

So passing a drug test is a bit like passing a test at school: you’re ok for now, but you still may flunk if you do poorly on following tests or the prof finds out you cheated.

WS, the WADA rule on disqualifications is WADA Code 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.” I think that the “ruling body” of the TdF is UCI, though ASO and AFLD may have their own claims to make here.

Forgive my “silly lawyering”, but I don’t read the use of the permissive word “may” (as in “may lead to Disqualification”) to give much discretionary authority to the “ruling body”. My reading is that UCI is required to recognize USADA’s decision that Armstrong violated the anti-doping rules. I think this requirement is built into UCI’s own rules as well as the WADA Code. (It will be interesting to see if UCI views this differently.)

But if we turn to the question of whether Armstrong violated anti-doping rules “during or in connection with” each and every one of the 7 TdFs between 1999 and 2005, the matter might become more complicated. While some here may howl, proof of an athlete’s career-wide pattern of doping has not always led to blanket disqualification of an athlete’s career-long results (see Ullrich, Jan). Presumably, this is a critical matter for USADA to address in its “reasoned decision”.

There is also the issue of WADA’s and UCI’s statute of limitations — I don’t expect the statute of limitations to get in USADA’s way, but I would expect that USADA will at least have to explain how it got around the statute.

One last point about the importance of passing doping tests. Of course it’s a good thing for an athlete to pass doping tests. The question I was trying to address is, what does it prove to pass a doping test? It certainly does NOT prove that the athlete is not doping. Even without conspiracies and suppressed test results, doping athletes pass doping tests ALL THE TIME. The false negative rate in doping testing is extremely high. So I don’t take seriously any athlete’s claim that he or she is “clean” because he or she has been frequently tested.

Rant,

In that report http://sport.francetv.fr/stade2/?page=reportage&id_article=183355 , they told that USADA would have samples that have been found positive by retrotesting.
No number is specified.
For Lance’s exwife, no conditionnal is used, it’s said that they were part of FBI investigation, and they should have given sworn testimonies.

About the 38 number, that should be the number of samples that USADA could have : AFLD had said that Lance’s samples would be sent.
ABout retrotesting, we can guess that EPO and plasticizer test have been done. Blood transfusion method requires to draw out blood for a storage, followed by reinfusion of old stored blood, that means that a lot of them could be positive.

William,

We can only speculate about those retro-tests, that could be to new tests that were not available like plasticizer test, and/or testing specific products. As we know, samples are not tested with all tests available, only a few of them are run on a sample.
Knowing Lance’s doping program means that USADA could have searched for specific PED.

USDA should and would provide the less information they can to achieve their aims for 2 main reason:
– to keep ammunitions for Lance’PR fight
– to protect their case against Bruyneel & co

Now McQuaid has inserted the UCI into the mix:

Although the names of the riders who testified are yet to be made public, McQuaid said he would look into statements made by Garmin-Sharp manager Jonathan Vaughters, who wrote in the Cyclingnews forums that several of his riders had doped in the past, including Tom Danielson, David Zabriskie and Christian Vande Velde.

“We need to see if Jonathan Vaughter’s accusations have any substance so we can see if we take action against these riders,” said McQuaid.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-may-not-appeal-lance-armstrong-ban

Interesting. I see nothing in the WADA Code that would require UCI to respect any agreement by USADA not to sanction Danielson and the others.

An amnesty program might work if we had some reliable way to ensure riders are clean going forward. But unless WADA has something up it’s sleeve, it’s still pretty much the deal we discussed above: a clean test doesn’t mean much. So there’s not much to prevent a rider from accepting amnesty for past sins, and the keep on with business as usual, except maybe the threat of really putting some serious hurt if you’re caught after amnesty. A lot could depend on the status of a rider’s career: if you’ve only a year or two left, might be considered worth it.

Then maybe I’m just to cynical.

Jean C, for certain Armstrong was tested outside of the oversight of UCI — for example, when he participated in the 2000 Olympic Games. It is possible that McQuaid is not counting doping tests conducted out of competition in the United States.

Jeff, you’re right, UCI will probably knuckle under to USADA and accept the deals that USADA cut with riders to get their testimony against Armstrong. I think that UCI wants this story to go away, as quickly and quietly as possible. My point is, there’s nothing in the WADA rules that requires this result, nor is this result necessarily in the best interests of cycling. As a rule, the decisions made by a national anti-doping organization are not binding on international ADAs (see the Contador case, for example). Moreover, it’s not clear that 10+ cyclists (including a number of active cyclists) should escape doping sanctions so that 1 cyclist (retired) can be punished.

Of course Lance has been tested by other entities like USADA, AFLD and during IOC.

A glimpse of how many tests could have had Lance according UCI rules, that chart is older than McQuaid statements.
http://dimspace.co.uk/lancetesthistory.png

Even if some tests could miss, that is far away of the 500 tests clamed loudly by Lance.

Jeff,
The current mess is the results of UCI management, who don’t have run cycling as a sport but as a bad business, trading sport values for “mafia” values : dishonest behavior to protect interests.

And let’s not forget the IOC, who in many ways I think is responsible for this mess.

Larry writes:
“Jean C, for certain Armstrong was tested outside of the oversight of UCI — for example . . . .
“Jeff, you’re right, UCI will probably [then you copy and paste what I have said so much better] . . . .My point is, there’s nothing in the WADA rules that requires this result, nor is this result necessarily in the best interests of cycling. As a rule, the decisions made by a national anti-doping organization are not binding on international ADAs (see the Contador case, for example). Moreover, it’s not clear that 10+ cyclists (including a number of active cyclists) should escape doping sanctions so that 1 cyclist (retired) can be punished.”

Larry, from what planet are you? You have no idea what you are talking about. Please first read the WADA rules before publicly spreading this nonsense.

Exactly what in all of this is “bad for cycling?” Please tell us.

You are constantly promoting the lie. And that is wrong.

LauraLyn – What planet are YOU on? Do you honestly not recognize that the destruction of Lance Armstrong & the INCESSANT doping AND anti-doping perpetuated by & within the sport is BAD for the professional sport of cycling? At least in the USA it most definitely is.

And SOMEone please explain how crucifying ONE athlete for doing the SAME thing done by MOST in the sport for DECADES “helps” cycling?! If Lance is stripped, then STRIP EM ALL. Strip Riis, Indurain (oh, please), Pantini, Ulrich, Delgado, Fignon, Hinault, Pereiro. And what about the “greatest cyclist of all time” – Merkcx? Do you REALLY think he did all that without ANY pharmaceutical help? Wasn’t he thrown out of the Giro?

And let’s NOT stop with the winners?! Why shouldn’t Vaughters be “banned for life” just because he wasn’t ever good enough to be more than pack fodder?

Anyone who says PEDs hasn’t riddled this sport for decades is a fool. And anyone who thinks the right way to “clean up” the sport is to go back & destroy all the past champions is ALSO a fool. Ironically, this method is akin to chemotherapy – where the “cure” is sometimes worse than the disease. Either way, you can KILL the PATIENT.

For better or worse sport are entertainment. Certainly professional sports, which depend on people being willing to pay for them in some way. Sponsors are willing to pay to get their name in the public light. Which in turn depends on people being interested enough in the sport to pay attention to it. Spectator sports, like football (pick your own version) depend on people paying to attend, and now on people tuning in on TV, which again depends on sponsors.

Here in the US cycling has often struggled for respect from the general public, who all to often perceive cycling as either a juvenile activity to give up once you get your driver’s license, and/or something that those Europeans with strange names do, dressed in dorky clothes. So yes indeed, even though Armstrong et al may well deserve what they get, this will not be good for the sport here in the US.

Larry,

To punish Lance, USADA should have found him guilty, have’nt they?

Larry:

I think that USADA is acting both as prosecution and judge here. If Armstrong had chosen to contest the charges, the indeed it would have gone to a hearing with USADA acting as the prosecution, and the putatively neutral panel acting as judges. But unlike a case in the US justice system, where a defendant is entitled and required to enter a plea in a hearing in front of a judge who then can render a verdict if the defendant chooses to plead either guilty or nolo contendre, there is no similar provision in the ADA system, to the best of my knowledge. So it looks to me that he has been found guilty.

I know that Armstrong questioned USADA’s jurisdiction, but even if some other agency (WADA, UCI, etc.) had filed the charges, once Armstrong declined to appeal, the process and result would have been substantially the same.

Or am I missing something here?

The process is more like a road police officier stopping and fining a driver for speeding, lack of insurance,… and then proposing him to challenge them in court.

Larry:

I see your point. But USADA is acting like they are in fact judge, jury, and executioner. Of course, there’s still the matter of that “reasoned decision”. Just what they will send to UCI, and whether or not UCI accepts it remain to be seen. My guess is that USADA will not provide a great deal if details, at least until the rest of the cases play out, and that UCI will knuckle under. UCI will want this to die down as quickly as possible, so won’t want to get into a pissing contest with USADA.

My entire comment is directed towards the proposed/hoped-for amnesty.

“In its letter to the UCI, USADA called for what its general counsel William Bock labeled a “truth and reconciliation commission,” and noted it was the only way to “clean up the sport of cycling once and for all.”

Maybe I’m missing something here, but does ANYBODY think it’s actually possible to clean up ANY sport “once and for all”? I don’t believe it for a moment. Unless you take away ALL the money, fame and prestige that come with winning. And even then, probably not.

LauraLyn, a while ago you said something akin to ‘doping is ruining our children’ (I didn’t go back to look so apologize if I got this wrong). I disagree. I think it’s human nature that is ruining our children. It’s basic human nature for us to be competetive. And sports is the ultimate arena for finding a ‘winner’, all the way down to little-league sports. There are League champions in baseball and soccer all the way down to the 6-10 year olds. Score is kept. They learn it at the earliest levels. There are winners and losers. NOBODY wants to be a loser. The old saying “it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game” is something said by the 2nd place team.

There are and always have been those among us who are driven to be better than everybody else in every aspect of life. Insofar as sports are related, those people are the ones who most will most likely excell in their sport and have the best chance of making a professional career in this crazy world where the sports industry is probably the biggest dollar-value entertainment we have.

The very same drive that got them to the upper echelon of their sport is the very same drive that will allow them to rationalize “whatever it takes” to win. For a cyclist to slip out of the pack and get on a train and then step off and win a TDF stage (it has happened, and he got caught) would be looked upon as cheating by ANYBODY. But taking PED’s, where the athlete still does ALL the work (in many cases more, as PED’s allow for harder/better training and recovery, thus making the athlete better than his competitors) isn’t seen as cheating. It’s just the athlete ‘being all he can be’. The difference between illegal PED’s and legal supplements (that also benefit the athlete’s performance) is a distinction made by someone else.

It’s very easy for people not involved (armchair quarterbacks) to make judgements and decide what is legal and what is not. But athletes will NEVER STOP seeking an edge over their competitors. EVEN if this “truth and reconciliation” process happens, the athletes in ALL sports will continue to do whatever it takes to win, just with new and different ways. What helps them to be their very best today will not be what helps them tomorrow and in the coming years. This has been true since the very first competition occured.

I don’t even race, (done a few mtb races but finished in midpack)…but if I could be prescribed and safely take EPO (which would most certainly boost my performance, as I have been at/near anemic hemacrit levels for my entire life) I would take it in a hearbeat. Why? Becasue I want to do better. ALWAYS. I race against MYSELF each and every time I ride. There’s no money or fame involved here. I’m just an aging guy continually fighting to beat my last time up that hill, and my overall time on my last ride. I wouldn’t see taking EPO as cheating in even the slightest way. It’s not like my bike has an electric motor…I’m the guy out doing the work. Why should I be penalized by having a lower natural hemacrit level than the next guy?

Why would the pro’s feel any different? Why would kids? The world is based on competition. At work. School. Sports. Play-time (recess…ever play dodge-ball as a little kid? Tetherball? Four-square?) EVERYTHING is a competition. Grades in school. Tommy did better than Johnny. Valedictorian at graduation. Winning is and always has been everything.

Just look at the recent Olympics….the lovely “Medal count” on the news EVERY DAY! That is why sports will NEVER be clean.

William, Jean C. is right. This is how arbitration works, the world over. It is done this way, believe it or not, to benefit athletes. Lance was once a strong proponent of it. His coach helped to write the rules. If Lance believes the charges are wrong, he could have contested. The only plausible reason he did not contest is because they are true. The comparison is with a criminal that enters a court room and pleads no contest. Of course, the evidence is not presented and the criminal is sentenced.

Matt C. I am happy to be on the second place team. And the first place team, if they cheated, they didn’t win. It is that simple. Those who cheated not only did not win, they also stole the win from those who played fair. The corruption runs deep. It runs through Lance Armstrong’s entire life and all his activities. A lie is a terrible thing.

It is not human nature to be “blamed.” It is for sure that humans are not perfect, that some people believe, as you suggest, “winning at all costs.” These are weak people who never learned to be satisfied with the person/athlete they are. If they cheat to get the trophy, the trophy doesn’t belong to them no matter what is engraved on it – and they stole it from someone who played honestly.

What Larry says about the USADA and the UCI amnesty is total and utter nonsense. I don’t know how to say it nicely. It is just wrong to send this kind of deception into the world.

As you say, Matt, Brock suggested in his letter to UCI that what was needed for cycling was a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It was brilliant. Primarily what that means is that cyclists and all those involved in cycling need to be given an opportunity to come forth and tell the truth. If this happens, no doubt UCI and USA Cycling and ASO and other organizers, like those this past weekend in Florida who called the cops on the USADA doping controllers, will be shown to have been complicit in doping.

UCI is trying everything it can to cover ups its very large role in doping in cycling. So it proposes an “amnesty,” not truth telling. It is proposing only that riders come forward and say, Yes, I doped. Then they are forgiven their sins of the past and they continue to ride. The UCI does not want what the USADA wants: riders, managers, team doctors, and others coming forward and saying Yes, I was involved in doping and this is how it happened, this is the truth. And the UCI does not want it because it goes straight to McQuaid and Verbruggen and utter corruption.

Larry has no idea what the USADA offered teammates (and maybe others, we have no idea who) in exchange for telling the truth, including about Lance Armstrong and the 5 others on the US Postal Team that were involved in doping, trafficking drugs, and influencing others to take drugs (no small charges). What is for sure is that it is not “practically a generation of American cyclists” (what mumble jumble utter nonsense from the basement of Lance’s PR offices in DC), but a handful of riders and perhaps others who saw Lance Armstrong dope, who saw him provide others with dope, who saw him traffic drugs illegally, who saw him dope younger more vulnerable riders – what USADA is offering this limited number of riders is a reduction in sanctions (not amnesty by any means) for telling the truth and (what the UCI does not want) the whole truth.

And what Larry does not mention is that this same deal was offered to Lance Armstrong and he turned it down. And what Larry does not mention is that this same deal is still on the table for Lance Armstrong, and he still is so arrogant and full of hubris as to turn it down. What Larry and Lance still have not figured out is that Travis Tygart may be the only friend Lance has left in the world.

And if Larry dopes he can be right sure that Travis will also offer him a deal for telling the truth. And if he doesn’t dope, then I have no idea why he is saying such nonsense here.

Lance Armstrong is not a victim by any stretch of the imagination. He is a criminal and beyond that, an unrepentant one.

And yes, he is a danger to our children.

Matt,

People riding while using EPO are clearly cheating , they benifit from a new extra muscular engine powered by an extern mean.

As you pointed, race should have only winners, we should not promote sport as a winner/losers thing.

Laura Lyn is probably right, Lance has been offered the same deal, I have read about it sometimes. That should be one of first statements of Tragart after Lance’ councelors that witnesses had been paid.
We can believe that USADA wanted and still want to put down the Verbruggen, McQuaid ann Lance’s partners mafia. That is an important step to clean cycling.

As I recall, at one time Dick Pound said he would like to see not only hypobaric tents banned, but also high altitude training. I can see some difficulty in enforcing a ban on the tents, unless you have a witness. Didn’t Landis cobble up his own?

But a ban on high altitude training is totally nonsense. What did Dickie have in mind doing about all the people who live at altitude? I’ve spent a good part of my life post high school in locations around 5000 feet or more in elevation, and with rides available at up to over 10,000 feet essentially from out my front door.

But in general, I think Matt has a point here: using any PED is only cheating because it has been banned. Remember the 1984 US Olympic cycling team. A number of them used blood doping via transfusions, and it was perfectly legal at the time. Hence it was not cheating. Whether we want to throw cycling or any sport open to PED usage is a different question, but cheating is defined by the rules as they exist at any point in time, and rules can and often are changed.

MattC, EPO clearly CAN BE dangerous when used by athletes as a PED. When used as a PED, EPO “thickens” blood, which causes additional circulatory strain as well as damming (clotting) in smaller blood vessels.

William, when it comes to the binding nature of anti-doping immunity deals, we’re in an uncertain area. The WADA Code does not address these deals, and I don’t think there’s anything in the UCI rules or any USADA protocol addressing these deals. I’m reasonably certain that UCI or WADA can appeal a USADA decision not to seek sanctions against an allegedly doping athlete, just as UCI and WADA appealed the decision of the Spanish authorities not to sanction Contador. But there are many unresolved issues and much we don’t know about the current situation. Again, this is an argument in favor of a general amnesty, to clarify the existing situation and to make certain that all cyclists are given the same deal.

I have to admit I did not know tents were banned (when did this happen? They didn’t used to be illegal)….however, when used CORRECTLY (ie, under a Dr.’s supervision) EPO is quite safe. And yes, athletes have died from it (taking it on the sly as they do now), as they had their hemacrit up well into the high 50’s/low 60’s, and being young and in awesome physical condition they had resting heart rates in the 30’s (mine is still a 42, and I’m 52 years old!)…and they had heart attacks in their sleep from the uber-slow heart beat trying to pump sludge…again, this just brings the point of rider safety…if things were done in the open and under a Dr’s care (and a max hemacrit level set for a racer to be allowed to race) it would be a totally level playing field, AND safe for the athletes (this has all been discussed here before). Obviously rider safety ISN’T the main focus here, nor the level playing field. If you can’t stop it (which clearly they can’t), legalize it and regulate/monitor it.

MattC, no. Really. No.

No drug is “safe”. All have side effects. When we say that a drug is “safe”, what we’re really saying is that the benefits of use of that drug for patients with a particular condition outweigh the risks. So, EPO has been approved for use by certain patients, such as those with anemia. It is for these uses that the drug has been studied and tested.

Once we start talking about use of EPO by athletes, we’re no longer within a context where the safety of EPO can be assessed. There is no recognized medical benefit for the use of EPO by a healthy cyclist. Therefore, the risks of using the drug outweigh the benefits, and the drug is not “safe”. If this sounds overly technical to you, then go with the idea that we have never studied the health effects on healthy people of drugs like EPO. We cannot even be sure that these drugs WORK the same way on healthy people!

Ditto for any notion about EPO being used by a cyclist under a doctor’s supervision. If there’s no medical reason for a cyclist to use EPO, then how exactly is a doctor supposed to supervise its use?

Rant: Yes, Travis Tygart said it in an interview after the ban. He also stated clearly that the interview was still on the table. And it makes perfect sense. Tygart is interested in cleaning up the sport. He is honest, and he has dealt with Lance no differently than any other cheating athlete.

Lance simply lied about never having an offer. But Lance has lied and lied and lied. He does not know how not to lie, it seems.

There is no reason to believe that USADA is going after McQuaid and Verbruggen. (But hopefully someone will.)

William: what you write about a UCI amnesty is pure nonsense. You need to read again what I wrote. There isn’t and there will never be a UCI amnesty. It is just blowing smoke.

MattC: There are no rules against training at altitude or sleeping in an altitude tent. Sure accidents can happen with altitude tents, but I am unaware of anyone dying from one. People do die (and have died) from EPO. Don’t just invent things.

In the first Tour de France’s riders could only have 2 bottles of water a day. If you used three you cheated. Cheating is breaking the rules. It is that simple. That is how the USADA works.

“Winning is everything.” That is pure stupidity. And if Lance the sanctions against Lance are ever manipulated to let him off, I will not be bothered much at all. It will be a shame for cycling, a shame for America, a shame for cancer victims, and a shame for our youth. But Lance is a cheat. I cannot believe he won anything honestly. He never won. It is that simple. I could always be happy with 2nd, 3rd, 155th . . . . who cares. What does 1st prove? And if you cheat, you never did get first.

MattC, your statements show shallow thinking and unethical and untenable positions.

One additional factor to consider: many drugs are in fact controlled substances. Although there are different schedules of controlled substances here is the US, I am sure that EPO is not something you pick up OTC. Using a controlled substance without a proper prescription is probably illegal, although at what level I don’t know. And I would think that for a doctor to prescribe a drug for other than valid medical reasons would certain be against medical ethics, and possibly lead to getting his license revoked. Making PEDs “legal” in the context of sports isn’t as simple as bringing back the spitball.

Plus, if you made it “legal” but restricted, you still would have people who would attempt to get an advantage by exceeding the dosage limits.

Rant: Thanks for finding the article. The offer is still on the table.

One day Lance will hopefully wake up and realize that Travis Tygart is now his best friend.

LauraLyn, of course EPO has a medical effect; it helps a cyclist ride faster by increasing the capacity of the cyclist’s circulatory system. But that effect can in no way be seen as medically beneficial, any more than Tom Simpson’s reported use of amphetamines was medically beneficial. There are many ways to improve a cyclist’s performance while risking the cyclist’s health, and EPO is one of them.

You yourself have made the point that the proliferation of PEDs is a public health issue.

EPO is like any other prescription drug. It is medically beneficial when used for approved purposes, such as treating anemia. EPO was not designed to improve the health of the general population. Use of EPO by cyclists should be regarded by all as unsafe, as there are risks associated with healthy cyclists using this drug with no known medical benefit.

You go Suz!

I couldn’t help but notice something she said in a previous thread:

“Nico: Trolling can be a dangerous sport. Be careful to distinguish the lure from the prize fish.”

Which tells me a whole lot about what she seems to be doing.

Obama Derangement Syndrome, meet Armstrong Derangement Syndrome.

I had to look up “sockpuppet” on wikipedia.

Larry. You aren’t alone. I had to look up that and “troll”. I guess I’ve got too much gray hair (actually, its all gray, but I look at my brothers and at least I have hair!). 😉

Looks like USADA is dragging their feet:

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8409755/uci-questions-lance-armstrong-file-delay-usada

I have a feeling that this process still has years to go.

To wit, a few issues:
-If the USADA made deferral arrangements in exchange for the promise of testimony, that’s gotta be in the file right? Do they have the ability to stop UCI from prosecuting based on the proposed testimony?

-Does the USADA include the bit about the 2001 Tour de Swisse in the file?

-Does the USADA have the right to appeal to the CAS if the UCI disagrees with their proposed charges and sanctions?

-And finally, if this does wind up in the CAS, what’s Armstrong’s standing in the proceeding? And if the CAS does render a decision, does he (and/or the USADA) have standing to return to US courts?

WADA and UCI are going to have to weigh the “benefits” of a national-level organization granting immunity to get a big name doper vs the idea of letting off some other dopers. Of course, as far as I know, we don’t know the extent of USADA’s deal. Will it be a complete free pass or merely some form of reduced sentence? Since some of the potential “dealees” have retired or are near retirement, some sort of reduced ban that might allow them to soon resume an out-of-saddle cycling career might be in the works. Who knows?

On a cycling news forum people were talking about the evidence in the Lance Armstrong case. Race Radio spoke up and said he had chatted up Sheryl Crow and she had revealed confidential court information to him.

Then someone asked: Who is Race Radio?

And someone responded: Who is Powers Endurance Sports?

For the latest gossip on Lance Armstrong, follow Race Radio on https://twitter.com/TheRaceRadio

What I literally said is: “No, it was not me. It appears there is some nut posting as RaceRadio in various comments sections. It is not me”

A most unsatisfying ending with Birotte dropping Lance’s investigation leaving a lot of questions that are surging again now:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/usada-forthcoming-report-lance-raises-questions-article-1.1173205

I”m assuming you’ve all seen the news that Floyd has been officially told to shut up about the UCI,( calling them corrupt and such among other things). Just wondering how this will continue to play out once we’ve seen USADA’s ‘case’ against LA…(specificly, if there’s any evidence about an actual failed test that was covered up, substantiating Floyds assertions). And also the lawsuit against Kimmage will be affected too. Interesting times we live in, certainly never a dull moment!

+1 with Rant about Landis-UCI.

If Swiss laws are similiar to french ones, that could backfired strongly if UCI is find to be corrupt and Heiny and Patty were aware of it, the worst for them being part of corruption!
I hope there is no exemption for member of international organisation based in Switzerland.

Nice cite.
I’m curious.
1) Did the Swiss Court in question consider the issue of jurisdiction?
2) If they did and decided yes, what was the rationale?
3) It’s clear they are bound international agreements regarding proper service.
4) Did they ignore their duty?
5) If not, how was service accomplished?

LeMond is about as much a favorite of mine as Armstrong. Regardless, I have to admire him for calling the UCI out by challenging them to sue him in a USA court:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/news/must-hear-greg-lemond-speaks-out-in-wide-ranging-interview-on-irish-radio_256161
See: “On Paul Kimmage and his battle with the UCI:”
bottom of the page.

Come on, Matt – isn’t it clear by now that Lance was an East German PLANT in this country? To spearhead a DOPING master conspiracy? And having him “work” in the sport of pro-cycling which is SUCH a HUGE financial pot of gold where all participants became instantly rock-star famous, why it was just pure genius.

Plus, if he was ever caught, it would take the spotlight off their DECADES of Olympic doping & possibly the cry to STRIP all those manly girls (or is it girlie men?) of all their ill-gotten MEDALS? Again, puuuuuure genius.

Of course, some say Tygart is really trying to “prove” that Lance is Keyser Soze. Hey, Travis, we’ve SEEN the movie! Still got that gold lighter?