Ever since Lance Armstrong threw in the towel and in essence pleaded “no contest” to the anti-doping case the US Anti-Doping Agency initiated against him, the question has been, “When will USADA make the evidence they’ve accumulated against the (now-disgraced) seven-time winner of cycling’s Super Bowl, the Tour de France, avalable?” Now we know. Today, USADA issued a press release and also released a 200+ page “reasoned decision” summarizing their case against Armstrong. Also on their site, you can find a page with all of the appendices and supporting material, which includes 1000+ pages of documentation, along with videos and a whole lot more. From USADA’s press release:
The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.
The evidence of the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team-run scheme is overwhelming and is in excess of 1000 pages, and includes sworn testimony from 26 people, including 15 riders with knowledge of the US Postal Service Team (USPS Team) and its participants’ doping activities. The evidence also includes direct documentary evidence including financial payments, emails, scientific data and laboratory test results that further prove the use, possession and distribution of performance enhancing drugs by Lance Armstrong and confirm the disappointing truth about the deceptive activities of the USPS Team, a team that received tens of millions of American taxpayer dollars in funding.
Together these different categories of eyewitness, documentary, first-hand, scientific, direct and circumstantial evidence reveal conclusive and undeniable proof that brings to the light of day for the first time this systemic, sustained and highly professionalized team-run doping conspiracy.
Notable in the USADA’s initial statement is the list of cyclists who co-operated with the investigation. It confirms that George Hincapie, Dave Zabriskie, Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde and a number of the usual suspects provided evidence. Hincapie released a statement on his website. Dave Zabriskie also released a statement. VeloNation.com quotes an op-ed piece Levi Leipheimer wrote for the Wall Street Journal, and statements issued through the Garmin-Sharp team.
VeloNews.com has a whole lot of coverage, including summary and a link to this ESPN.com discussion featuring Armstrong attorney Tim Herman, USADA’s Travis Tygart, ESPN.com’s Bonnie D. Ford, and Lester Munson, a legal analyst. Among the stories is one where Levi Leipheimer says “doping was organized and everywhere in the peloton. Doping wasn’t the exception, it was the norm.”
Meanwhile, Joe Lindsey of Bicycling.com has a story about Hincapie admitting he doped during his career. Over at The New York Times, Juliet Macur provides a good summary of the day’s developments, too. CyclingNews.com has a bunch of stories, as do a number of other outlets.
So what does it all mean? Well, as I told KPCC during a brief call earlier today, it appears to add up to a rather devastating case against Armstrong. Because Armstrong chose to plead “no contest,” the picture that emerges is drawn only from USADA’s information. Armstrong’s side may continue to say that the system is rigged (and that’s true, to a certain extent), but they chose not to fight. Yes, it would have taken a long time. Yes, it would have cost a lot of money. And yes, it would have brought out a whole lot of potentially embarrassing information that would make Lance look bad and perhaps damage the Livestrong brand.
Guess what? It’s all out there now for anyone who’s interested to read and to make up their own minds, anyway. I haven’t had time to wade deeply into either the reasoned decision or the supporting material, but just a glance through the reasoned decision tells me that USADA covers a whole lot of ground in their case. Is it convincing? I don’t know — yet — but at this point, I’ll hazard a guess that it won’t change the minds of die-hard Lance supporters and it will confirm the naysayers opinions.
Will today’s developments herald a new, dope-free (or at least mostly dope-free) era in cycling? I’d like to think so, but I’m not so certain. After the 1998 Festina affair, the 1999 Tour was billed as the “Tour of Redemption.” Turns out, it was only “redemption” on the surface and the same-old, same-old underneath. Levi Leipheimer may well be right that a critical mass of cyclists coming clean might provide the real momentum to make the sport cleaner. But it will take some time for that to play out.
The idea of a “Truth and Reconciliation” process, where cyclists and others involved in the sport come clean and tell what they did and what they know, has been floated a number of times. It’s a good idea, from my perspective. Get everything out in the open. But once that happens — if that happens — a credible system needs to be in place to deter future dopers. Do we have such a system at the moment?
Some say that the only way to clean up the sport is a total house-cleaning to remove anyone who’s ever doped. I don’t buy that. For one, it would decimate the ranks of the peloton, as well as team management. Those people who have seen the light, and who wish to turn a page and move forward, are perhaps the best guarantee that the sport could be clean in the future.
After all, the people who know the doper’s mindset and tricks the best are those who were once a part of the ranks of the chemically-enhanced. Who better to spot someone who’s gone off the rails, or even an entire team that has reverted to the old ways?
So where does that leave us? I’d like to believe that today’s developments are a step in the right direction. But lest we forget, Armstrong’s team wasn’t the only one with an organized doping plan. They may have done it better than the rest, but they weren’t an exception to the culture within the sport. They were a part of it.
The old saying goes that a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Here’s to hoping that this journey leads to a cleaner sport. But let’s also realize that it depends very much on how the powers that be wish to move forward, and whether they can be convinced this is the right way to go. Pressure from fans and from the media could well sway them in that direction, but only if that pressure is sustained. It appears to be working, at least for the moment. But that pressure needs to continue if any real change is going to occur.
Rant, I’m about 20 pages into the report. It is an odd read, more like a tell-all book than a legal decision. For certain, the thing is book-length, and it has a chatty (almost a catty) tone. For all the length in the report, I haven’t located a smoking gun yet. There are odd allegations, like that Armstrong received a placebo when he’d allegedly asked for a PED. There are numerous passive-voice accusations, such as on page 18 where the report states that by 1998 “George Hincapie and Frankie Andreu were aware of Armstrong’s EPO use”.
So far the report relies heavily (and in my view, surprisingly) on the testimony of Betsy Andreu.
Like I said, I’m only 20 pages in, but so far I’m surprised by the amount of filler and the lack of red meat. I think that much of what is alleged in the report would simply evaporate under cross-examination and court scrutiny. Even with this evaporation, there may be enough left in the report to convict Armstrong, and as Tygart took pains to point out, Tygart might have been able to generate additional evidence if the case had gone to arbitration.
So far, the biggest surprise in the report is the role played for the prosecution by Paul Scott. You all may remember Scott — he was one of the experts on the Landis defense team. Before that, he was one of the founders of Agency for Cycling Excellence, the organization that ran the clean cycling program for Vaughters’ team. Scott began his anti-doping career at the UCLA lab. Scott is an attorney, and as he was hired by Landis’ attorneys and (presumably) learned all he knew about Landis in the course of this investigation, I would have thought that Scott was bound by the attorney-client privilege to keep secret what he knew about Landis’ doping.
The report states that the case against Armstrong began with the case against Kayle Leogrande in 2008. This caused USADA to investigate the doping scene in southern California, where USADA “came to understand” that Landis might have evidence on this topic. But before USADA could contact Landis, Paul Scott contacted USADA to confirm that Landis had information relevant to USADA’s investigation. Scott also provided information to USADA “about the involvement of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Landis in doping on the U.S. Postal Service Team.” This took place in early 2010, BEFORE Landis confessed that he had taken PEDs throughout his career. Evidently, it was the communication by Scott that effectively forced Landis’ hand and caused him to confess.
This is very odd stuff, and is for certain a part of the Landis story that no one has told before.
The testimony from Hincapie that he received vials of EPO from Armstrong … that’s a smoking gun. Ideally, I’d want to read Hincapie’s testimony for myself, or test it in cross-examination. But that testimony is a smoking gun.
I think I see now why the USADA dilly dallied all summer long. They put these (not Armstrong) guys on a 6 month suspension, now, at the end of the season, at least half of that suspension will be ‘carried out’ when they were off the bike (professionally) anyway. Not a coincidence, I am quite sure.
Glanced at Hincapie’s affidavit Why did USADA redact names? “Rider-4” “Rider-5” “Other-3” What games are they playing? I’m no attorney, but witness testimony is weak from my view point — human memories are always flawed and twisted.
This sport is destroyed.
But thank GOD the world is now “safe” from all those pesky cycling dopers.
Meanwhile, the cheating, corruption, & yes, DOPING continues on UNABATED in the rest of the worlds’ sports. And whereas pro-cycling was populated by mere dopers & some laughable power mongers, the “legitimate” sports are filled with felons, pimps, whores, cheaters & your occasional pedophile. Ah yes, thank God the ‘wicked’ sport of cycling is dead. DING DONG…
“Is morally, ethic’lly,
Spiritually, physically,
Positively, absolutely,
Undeniably and reliably Dead
As Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined it.
And it’s not only merely dead, its really most sincerely dead.
Mayor Tygart :
Yes, let the joyous news be spread ‘That wicked Old Cycling at last is dead!'”
I have not read the report, but merely scanned it. I will admit that it appears that there is a strong case against Armstrong. However, I am sure that USADA carefully crafted this report to put the case in the strongest possible terms. Nothing wrong with that: this is really the purpose of such a report, but we shouldn’t forget the NaCl too.
I am a bit troubled that USADA took all this time and trouble to get a cyclist now retired for violations that took place, for the most part, years ago; and that they have given vary light sentences to the many other riders involved who were willing or coerced to testify. None of what was alleged to have occurred in a vacuum, and I doubt that Armstrong was really any more egregious in his actions than other cyclists of the time. The riders cited in the report seem to portray themselves as victims of Armstrong’s evil plots, but we’re they or was it more a matter of the general state of cycling of the time, where the perception was that in order to succeed you needed to dope? Landis stated when he confessed that he started doping when he began his pro career because he thought “that’s what pro cyclists did”. He took some heat, at least here, for that statement but perhaps there is a good bit of truth there. If those riders were uncomfortable with what Lance wanted them to do, did he have enough juice to keep them from moving to a different team? There were certainly some riders who left USPS for other teams. Of course, other teams may have been just as dirty. Or maybe those riders were more willing at the time to dope and reap the benefits of riding for such a strong team.
We’re this will all lead is hard for me to say. We now have 9 of the last 14 TdF winners DQed for drugs. This will certainly have some effect on the public, especially the marginal fan. But then after 2006, there was a lot of talk that Landis would bring down the sport, that sponsors would drop like flies etc. While some sponsors did get out, pro cycling survived. And the revelations about Armstrong are nothing new.
What effect this will have in terms of “cleaning up the sport” is also hard to say. Will USADA go after other riders with the same vigor? Will they attempt to extend ther jurisdiction to include non-US riders, perhaps based on riders having participated in events here in the US or riding for US based teams? Will other agencies follow up on this, mining the report for leads? Or will they all think “we’ve got the big trophy, we can sit back now”. Time will tell.
Here’s an interesting take on Lancegate:
http://www.businessinsider.com/malcolm-gladwell-lance-armstrong-2012-10#ixzz295YptQEI
Looks like ASO is prepared to act if UCI accepts USADA’s report. But if I read this correctly, they will strip Armstrong of the titles but will not elevate the other riders: there will be no winner.
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8494386/tour-de-france-vacate-1999-2005-titles-uci-strips-lance-armstrong-titles
The ASO is digging the grave of its own race. Of course, they’ve always known – there has NEVER been a “legitimate” winner of the Tour de France if you discount all performance “enhancers”. Too bad the rest of the world has now seen behind the curtain.
Lance has been found gulty of doping, trafficking, enabler,… he didn’t fight the charge, so he is stripped of his results as all doped athletes that have been convicted.
Why should it be different for Lance? His case, especially with threat of people, is much worse than the others we know.
MattC,
Gladwell has forgotten to speak about the corruption of UCi, if rules had been followed, Lance would not have been better than other dopers, he would have been convicted in 1999, and in 2001. There is others tests done by Catlin that were positive but not reported.
First, let’s not get the cart before the horse. USADA made its ruling regarding Armstrong some weeks ago. In the past few days, it released its Reasoned Decision to the general public to read and digest, presumably concurrently with the release to UCI. From memory, but not a cite, I believe I have read statements attributed to Travis Tygart that USADA has determined Armstrong’s results have been vacated for a period of time that includes most, if not all of the most productive years of his professional cycling career. If that’s accurate, the problem is it is not true. UDADA does not have the power to unilaterally decide. It is perfectly proper for them to suggest a sanction, but they cannot impose one. That falls to USA Cycling, UCI (regardless of how discredited-if being more discredited is possible), and possibly CAS, or some combination of the three.
The Armstrong “revelations” (sarcasm implied), are not particularly surprising, and certainly not shocking. In a period of rampant “doping”, I think one should assume he doped and doped well. It’s logical he doped better than the myriad of his doping contemporaries, and frequently won. What may be shocking to the Euro Peloton, the ones who started it all in the first place, is the lengths it was taken to while the ADA’s were publicly declaring victory in their little war against doping. It may well be that Armstrong’s Army, willing and reluctant soldiers included, did a better job against the doping cops than the Eastern Block government sponsored and funded efforts of the generation before? Maybe he should get a special medal minted by the IoC for that?
Opinions on the tolerance for doping in sport vary greatly. I’ve read articles supporting an Unlimited Class where anything doping-wise goes. Maybe there is a market for that? WWE doesn’t seem far off that for wrestling and it has its fair share of fans. For me, that would quickly grow tiresome and be disturbing. On the other hand, the notion of squeaky clean professional sports seems like an impossible dream. The existence of a real Easter Bunny is probably more likely?
It would seem the alphabet soup was hoping to persuade members of the public, the ones who cared and bought into the myth, that they were fighting the good fight and keeping doping to low acceptable levels while aggressively weeding out those dirty dopers who crossed the line. All this without actually doing what they claimed, apparently, as the Reasoned Decision on Armstrong illustrates.
While I’m not for an open doping class in sports, it’s clear anti-doping has a long way to go to be anywhere in the neighborhood of being effective. What?, you say? They just busted the dirtiest doper of all time. (sarcasm) I’m guessing that in terms of dopers, Armstrong falls somewhere in the middle ground? In terms of people who have perpetrated fraud, probably middle ground too? In terms of pulling it off well, at least in the short term, I’d venture to say he did well.
IoC, WADA, and the ADA’s publish Bravo Sierra mission statements that include protecting the health of athletes, when they couldn’t and don’t give a rat’s behind on that issue. It’s meant to sound nobel and to support keeping the money flowing in the right direction.
I don’t admire the guy and think he has the personality of a horse’s ass, but Armstrong is a medical specimen. USADA’s Reasoned Decision (actually a long meandering and sometimes rambling story that could have been made short, succinct, and to the point) indicates Armstrong was long engaged in what USADA publicly considers unhealthy doping practices both pre, and post surviving a close brush with death by cancer.
The story goes that the guy doped in an effort to win before he was almost consumed by cancer and yet embraced a more rigorous regime of doping after surviving cancer to realize an unprecedented level of success in bicycling’s most famous Grand Tour. And yet the guy is still alive, apparently healthy, ready to race the highest level triathlons if not for being disqualified by the soup, and is certainly wealthy.
So it seems USADA got a very high profile doper. There are a lot of caveats that go along with their “catch”. We can pretty much throw out the WADA approved labs. One can argue old lab data from stored samples and cross referencing experimental samples by sleuthing reporters supports witness testimony, but one certainly cannot argue any particular test done by a lab took Armstrong down. It never happened. On the subject of witness testimony, their are a few “smoking guns”, but much of the report relied on hearsay and inference. That’s an uncomfortably low threshold of evidence for many. Philosophically, I’m not sure USADA is using its resources efficiently, but it certainly carved out a position of power and gained a great deal of publicity. That, in and of itself, is a remarkable accomplishment for a largely publicly (re: our tax dollars) funded non-profit. I’m amazed it gained subpoena power and the ability to charge & sanction foreign nationals who did not operate on soil in the USA. That still mystifies me. What mystifies me more is the unquestioning support, or at least deference, the organization seems to get. To some, perhaps many, questioning USADA’s power grab is akin to endorsing doping and dopers. That may just be me as I don’t subscribe to the notion that the ends justify the means. I’m uncomfortable anti-doping in the USA has set a precedent for ADAs from other nations to sanction our people, though they may never have operated on foreign soil. In summary, USADA has only given us some of the details of what is painfully obvious, and has traded too much for it.
To me, it seems a hollow victory for USADA and the soup, while a bit more in the way of vindication for those Armstrong wronged and damaged along his way. As always, YMMV.
I have not finished reading the “reasoned decision” of USADA on the Armstrong case. My overall impression of the decision hasn’t changed: it is mostly a rambling collection of hearsay, innuendo and unverified assumptions. No matter that it wasn’t written to impress lawyers. No matter that if this decision had been edited by a competent judge, at least 75% of it would have been deleted. The decision will serve the purpose of moving the Armstrong case to a conclusion where he will be suspended from further competition, and where his Tour de France results will be disqualified.
I’ll go further. In the absence of any defense put forward by the Armstrong camp, I believe that the suspension and disqualifications are the right result. If Armstrong is willing to defend himself at this point, I’m willing to listen – it’s my experience as a lawyer that even where the prosecution’s case seems overwhelming, the defense can be convincing. But it does not appear that Armstrong will offer a defense, so for the moment at least I see no reason to defer judgment.
The actual, hard evidence against Armstrong is surprisingly thin. But what I find overwhelming is the fact that so many of Armstrong’s ex-teammates have confessed to doping and have described a U.S. Postal doping program that appears to have been systematic, team-wide and conducted over many years. If this establishes Armstrong’s guilt “by association”, well then, so be it. Even if I wanted to argue that Armstrong may not have participated in this program (and I admit, that’s probably an impossible argument to make seriously), he was certainly aware of the program’s existence. Even if I wanted to argue that Armstrong was not responsible for putting the program in place (and again, that’s a difficult argument to make), he most certainly had the power to end the program.
I have a profound lack of interest in some of the questions on the minds of others. Do I want to know the whole truth? When do we ever know the whole truth? We now know more about Armstrong in 2005 than we’re ever likely to know about Contador in 2010. Was Armstrong the worst doper of all time, in Tygart’s words, was the Armstrong doping scheme “more extensive than any previously revealed in profession sports history”? I don’t think it matters. What matters to me are two things: (1) Armstrong had it in his power to be a positive force in the fight against doping, and to put it mildly, he chose not to do so. (2) If Armstrong had died of cancer in Texas in 1997, the history of doping in cycling would not have been affected in any significant way.
There’s been much discussion here about whether it was worth the time and effort to prosecute Armstrong at this late date, and whether the Armstrong prosecution will prove to be a step forward in the fight against doping. This is a complicated question. The kind of doping program described in the Armstrong reasoned decision could not be put in place today, for the simple reason that the perpetual silence of program participants can no longer be taken for granted. This has been the case for quite some time; it may be true that some (or most) cyclists today are expected to participate in a doping program in order to keep up with the others, but it also appears that these cyclists are expected to organize their own individual doping programs in a way that allows their teams and their teammates to deny knowledge of (not to mention participation in) the program. In this sense, Armstrong is a PED-using dinosaur, a doping relic, about as relevant to the current scene as a Jacques Anquetil (who reportedly would inject himself with an “Anquetil cocktail” in the middle of a race). But there are some people (like Johan Bruyneel) who would still be active in cycling if not for the “reasoned decision”, and it is most certainly good for the sport that he’s no longer a part of it.
The tougher question is whether the Armstrong case will affect the “culture” of cycling. I’m confident that the case WILL affect the cycling culture, but again, I think that there are many forces affecting this culture. If we limit our focus on doping, the biggest effect on the cycling culture is the realization of the ADAs that doping testing is a limited tool, and their decision to place greater emphasis on international treaties and police action to curb doping in sport. It is true to an extent (and we cannot determine the extent) that riding in the peloton makes one a criminal suspect. This suspicion is going to change the cycling culture, in a way that I cannot predict.
The lack of defense probably twofold.
First, it’s highly likely Armstrong did essentially what he is accused of.
Second, WADA (USADA) has the deck well stacked in the event of arbitration. Even if Armstrong were squeaky clean innocent, vindication is an unlikely result, in the extreme.
I’m less troubled by the athlete cheaters than I am by the soup, which has instituted a rigged system to ensure they can dominate a selection of cheaters, a few marginal individuals who technically cheated while gaining no advantage, and malcontents it dislikes as well.
I find it unacceptable that being a professional cyclist automatically makes one a criminal suspect and currently requires a high level of surveillance.
The real rationale for the formation of WADA is/was to control the fallout of doping in olympic sport to protect the IoC brand and bottom line.
The stated rationale sounds nobel, is altogether different, and mostly a lie. Cover for the brand and bottom line.
As it was built on a poor foundation, stellar results are not expected and have not been realized.
Yeah, it’s changed the culture, and even for the better.
Trouble is, it was a lazy and unintelligent way to go about spurring change.
Blood letting doesn’t do anything to cure a cold, but the person with the cold will usually get better regardless, unless they take too much blood.
WADA, the Barber Surgeons of sport?
A good resume from Australia
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/11/3608613.htm
Another interesting take:
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8508176/lance-armstrong-baseball-hall-fame-vote
Nike must have taken part to corruption of UCI by trafering $500.000 to Verbruggen swiss account.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/nike-left-footprint-lance-scandal-article-1.1184431
Excerpt
During a 2006 deposition related to the suit, Kathy Lemond testified that Julian Devries, a mechanic for Armstrong’s team who was once close to her husband, had told her and others that Nike and Thom Weisel, a Bay Area banker who sponsored Armstrong’s team, had wired $500,000 to a Swiss bank account that belonged to Verbruggen.
Here’s a link to a very interesting article in VeloNews:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/analysis/analysis-how-spain-became-center-of-operations-in-armstrongs-doping-ring_261622
And here’s a REALLY interesting tidbit from the article:
“In 1997, in its second full season, U.S. Postal Service was just finding its legs as a team, trying to survive in the cutthroat peloton in Europe.
According to previous reports in the Danish media, Hamilton and other team members approached U.S. Postal Service management in 1997 about the lack of a doping program. The riders argued they could barely keep up, let alone win anything, without competing on a level playing field against a peloton fueled by EPO.
Testimony from former riders confirms that in 1997, one year before Armstrong joined the team, Dr. Pedro Celaya, a Spanish doctor with strong ties to the Spanish cycling community, replaced Dr. Prentice Steffen, the American doctor who now works with Garmin-Sharp.”
I thought this paragraph was of note as the current ‘thoughts’ are that Armstrong was THE starter, motivator, and ringleader of the entire Postal Doping program…but this says that he got there after the ball was rolling.
Not that we know for sure that this is true…but still, VERY interesting!
Also of note is the part about the new American team (Postal) trying to level the playing field. The entire Lancegate makes it out as Postal was the dirtiest team by far, and the orchestrators of the entire EPO era…but it seems they were playing catchup from the start, and whether it was from Lance or Johan, or whoever, got their ducks in a row and learned very fast how to be competitive in the “peleton fueled by EPO”.
MattC,
Lance had already teamed with Ferrari in 1995, then Michele confessed to be worried to have given cancer to Lance. So Lance had caugt up EPO doping programs.
Jean,
I wouldn’t doubt that Lance began doping before he was diagnosed with cancer. Especially given some of the comments by Stephen Swart, who was on the Motorola squad when Armstrong was a young pro.
I think what Matt was pointing out was that the USPS team had begun a doping program of some sort before Lance was hired. Of course, once Lance was there, and once Johan signed on to be the DS, the program went into overdrive.
They certainly weren’t the first team to dope. But they are among the most successful at doping and avoiding getting caught.
Lance is stepping down as chair of Livestrong:
http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8514728/lance-armstrong-stepping-livestrong-chairman
William,
Interesting. Also in the article is news that Nike dropped its sponsorship deal with Armstrong.
In related news, Levi Leipheimer was sacked by Omega Pharma-QuickStep yesterday, too.
Yep….Levi fired for coming clean. I can see the rest of the Pro peleton anxiously lining up to confess their sins now…
Nothing has changed.
Well, TT has cleaned up US cycling, of the first decade of this century.
US cycling has NOT been “cleaned up”! It’s been destroyed. Oh yeah, tons of sponsors will now FLOCK to this sport. TV coverage will surely now explode. Whoo-hoo, we’re in for a “golden age” of pro-cycling. Parents will shell out thousands for a new bike for little Johnny so he can “emulate” his “heroes”. NOT.
As for Levi being fired, are you REALLY surprised?! Come on, LeFevere has been in cycling a looooong time, do you really think he is not HIP DEEP in the “rules of the road”?! Rule#1 – cover your ass. Rule#2 – cover your ass. Rule#3 – feign shock, ignorance, trash the current offender(s) on the chopping block AND most important – cover your ass.
Cycling is pathetic – it allowed itself to be destroyed by power struggles & making the competitions so damn difficult that the only way you could continue to “compete” was to use whatever performance enhancers were available at the time (alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines, transfusions, EPO, steroids, etc,etc.). THEN they allow an outside agency to basically become a Star Chamber. What other PROFESSIONAL SPORT allows an OUTSIDE organization to test/rule over THEIR athletes let alone strip results & rewrite history? To offer itself up to the world judge & jury as the “dirtiest sport” while EVERY other sport has used & continues to use WHATEVER method available for them to WIN? And to top it off, the past 6 years, observing cycling has been like an episode of Wild Freakin Kingdom – the animals turn on, attack & devour the wounded of ITS OWN.
If you honestly believe that stripping every past result (or just of LANCE’S!) &/or barring EVERY SINGLE cyclist & everyone ASSOCIATED (managers, owners, coaches, Drs, trainers, sponsors, etc) with pro-cycling of the last 3 decades & that doping would henceforth never occur, you are DREAMING. It’s not cycling that is the ’cause’, it’s driven by what humans have always lusted after : winning, money, power, & fame. That the teeny, poor sport of cycling is being held up as THE offender of doping &/or cheating is a JOKE.
Motto of NASCAR – “If you ain’t cheatin, you ain’t tryin'”.
Motto of sports everywhere – “WHATEVER it takes to WIN”.
Motto of NIKE (et tu, Brute?) : “JUST DO IT”
NICE Susie….we’re totally on the same page here. Anybody think that ANY of the Euro doping federations will be following USADA’s suit and go back in time, giving lifetime bans to all their cyclists who have been doing the exact same thing for most of their careers? Don’t see it…US cycling is the sacrificial lamb for the sport, which is free to carry on.
But I keep hearing this “we believe the peleton is much cleaner now”…but I ask “HOW do you (we) know this?” The entire peleton was apparently doped to the gills long before Lance and Postal arrived.
How will we EVER know the winner is clean? Becasue he passed his doping test? We all know what a farce that is.
Bonnie Ford weighs in:
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8487169/usada-report-lance-armstrong-end-debate-whether-doped
I think the penultimate paragraph is on as to why Armstrong packed it in: there’s little meaningful penalties that can be leveled against him, outside of a courtroom at least.
Hey Susie, didn’t you catch my sarcasm?
And on a different note, WADA weighs in re the NBA:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8521302/wada-director-general-says-nba-gaps-anti-doping-program