No, not allegedly. He failed a drugs test for a steroid in the 1999 tdf, Then produced a predated prescription for a product that contained the steroid.
This broke UCI rules, as he had to declare he was using such a product, and produce the prescription prior to entering the race, and he did not. The UCI broke their own rules and allowed him to continue, he should have been immediately sanctioned and banned, but the UCI, for whatever reason did not do that. This is not 'allegedly', this is absolute fact, that everyone who follows cycling knows aboutAs I said before, do a bit of research.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong ]Armstrong has continually denied using illegal performance-enhancing drugs and has described himself as the most tested athlete in the world. A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range - by research did you mean have a look on wikipedia?[/url]
edit post not needed
ah ok full quote
Armstrong has continually denied using illegal performance-enhancing drugs and has described himself as the most tested athlete in the world.[64] A 1999 urine sample showed traces of corticosteroid in an amount that was not in the positive range.[citation needed] A medical certificate showed he used an approved cream for saddle sores which contained the substance.[65] Emma O' Reilly, Armstrong's masseuse said she heard team officials worrying about Armstrong's positive test for steroids during the Tour. She said: "They were in a panic, saying: 'What are we going to do? What are we going to do?'". According to O'Reilly the solution was to get one of their compliant doctors to issue a pre-dated prescription for a steroid-based ointment to combat saddle sores. O'Reilly said she would have known if Armstrong had saddle sores as she would have administered any treatment for it. O'Reilly said that Armstrong told her: "Now, Emma, you know enough to bring me down." O'Reilly said on other occasions she was asked to dispose of used syringes for Armstrong and pick up strange parcels for the team
you missed off the [citation needed] bit of that quote...
you missed off the [citation needed] bit of that quote...
Presumably you have this citation in your possession seeing how you know it is fact?
Tyler Hamilton's tell-all book about Lance Armstrong and doping in cycling will be released two weeks earlier than originally planned."The Secret Race: Inside the Hidden World of the Tour de France: Doping, Cover-ups, and Winning at All Costs," is now scheduled for release Sept. 5.
Ballantine Bantam Dell touts the book as the "first deeply detailed window into one of the defining sports stories of our time."
IIRC the U.S. Attournet General dropped the "Misuse of Public Funds" case against LA/U.S. Postal because there was no solid evidence despite having everything USADA have plus a 2 year invstigation by the DEA/FBI.
The USADA seem to be acting on little more than what is already common knowledge plus the 'testimony' of several aggreived parties, all of whom have something to gain from a guilty verdict.
It is [s]possible[/s] likely that doping was indeed part of the regime but in the scheme of things the dopers were, for the most part, ahead of the authorities. There's been conjecture about samples that showed banned substances just prior to them actually being banned which adds credibility to this argument.
Without any concrete evidence that the rules were broken at the time they were in place surely surely we are looking at a case built on hearsay and circumstance?
In the USAG investigation I seem to recall there were 'witness' statements that the entire team were all part of the programme to enable them to keep up with/assist LA to his titles in which case there should be a load of bans coming up and even more reputations destroyed.
Not team the 22 pages but read in-depth and followed it since way back when he is a bully and q drugs cheat. He had tested positive for drugs he had bullied clean riders who spoke out against the omerta and not once had he said "I didn't do drugs" he says "I never tested positive" ... stand up and fight if you are nnocent. JmO.
The idea that the whole peloton was cheating in 99 is false. Lots of the Tour 99 B samples that were retrospectively tested for EPO came up negative. Lance's six positives were a large part of the small proportion of positives.
Actually Carl lewis was caught
Should've run faster then...
Should've run faster then...
[img] 
[/img]
🙂
hes gonna race bmx now apparently?
I didn't know Carl Lewis could even ride a bike!
What the Captain said.
AFAIK no reason has been given for dropping the federal investigation. Lack of solid evidence would be one reason. But let's not forget that the federal investigation and the USADA were looking for different things - one was looking for fraudulent use of of govt funds, the other was looking for cheating in sport.IIRC the U.S. Attournet General dropped the "Misuse of Public Funds" case against LA/U.S. Postal because there was no solid evidence despite having everything USADA have plus a 2 year invstigation by the DEA/FBI.
Have you seen the evidence the USADA hold? I haven't but I'd be [i][b]astonished[/i][/b] if they were prepared to go into a legal process with nothing more than internet rumour and testimony from other guilty/aggrieved parties. I do not know (but I believe) USADA have evidence they are prepared to stand behind.The USADA seem to be acting on little more than what is already common knowledge plus the 'testimony' of several aggreived parties, all of whom have something to gain from a guilty verdict.
That's no reason not to punish them now though, is it?It is possible likely that doping was indeed part of the regime but in the scheme of things the dopers were, for the most part, ahead of the authorities.
see above - have you seen the evidence?Without any concrete evidence that the rules were broken at the time they were in place surely surely we are looking at a case built on hearsay and circumstance?
Correct that this is an investigation into the actions of a team, not as LA would have you believe, a personal witch-hunt. Two doctors and a rider (LA) have been banned. A doctor, a trainer and the team manager/DS have yet to go through the arbitration process.In the USAG investigation I seem to recall there were 'witness' statements that the entire team were all part of the programme to enable them to keep up with/assist LA to his titles in which case there should be a load of bans coming up and even more reputations destroyed.
you missed off the [citation needed] bit of that quote...
Did he? Maybe you should check the wiki article again 😉 - and then try reading the following reference (currently ref 65) which provides a source for that information.
surely surely we are looking at a case built on hearsay and circumstance?
Well if you're calling direct witness testimony "hearsay", then maybe that's the case. You do realise that an awful lot of people are convicted (case proved beyond reasonable doubt according to 12 men good and true) just based upon direct witness testimony and circumstance?
higgo et al, for you: is it simply a case of if someone's caught, he's always a cheat, and anyone not caught, is always clean?
Seems naive to me.
higgo et al, for you: is it simply a case of if someone's caught, he's always a cheat, and anyone not caught, is always clean?Seems naive to me.
No. It's not that simple.
I understand the need for, but am uncomfortable with, the idea of 'strict liability'. So, for example, Alain Baxter was 'caught' but I don't consider him a cheat.
There are those who were 'caught' and doped for a period of time - I'd consider them as cheats for that period of time but give them the benefit of the doubt outside that. Millar is a good example.
Two weeks ago Armstrong had not yet been caught but I was sure he was dirty. There are quite a few people who have not been 'caught' who I have a reasonable suspicion are dirty.
However I don't believe that 'everyone on the peleton was on it' - I am convinced that Sastre and Evans, for example, were clean throughout.
Also (as mentioned somewhere in the 22pages of rubbish) I view riders from the past (Coppi, Anquetil, Simpson, Merckx etc) more sympathetically than riders of the 80s/90s/00s - there's no reason for this - a cheat's a cheat and through history people who doped did it to score an advantage.
There are also different types of 'caught'. I guess the most caught is someone who admits to it. Positive A/B is a pretty good indicator too but (see Baxter) there is always the chance that some took something once completely by mistake. Then there is 'caught' by testimony or other evidence - if enough credible witnesses say you did it, you did it.
A lack of positive tests does not mean someone's clean - look at Bernhard Kohl - he handed over his doping diaries and hasd been on all sorts of stuff for years but only tested +ve once, probably by not following his doping schedule well enough.
Without resorting to cliches, they're case-by-case cases and it's not black/white.
>The idea that the whole peloton was cheating in 99 is false. Lots of the Tour 99 B samples that were retrospectively tested for EPO came up negative. Lance's six positives were a large part of the small proportion of positives.
Just in case it's not been posted already - more detail here:
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Just finished listening to the velocast episode. Very interesting listening and some very good insight from people passionate about the sport of cycling.
The key things I think it highlights are:
- Lance will have had very high levels of testosterone in his pee due to the cancer. This should have been easily detected by a drugs test at an early stage and the cancer could have been prevented from spreading. Why didn't this happen (as it has for other athletes)? Are the UCI massively incompetent or complicit in the doping.
- Omertà is a massive black mark on the sport of cycling, people are still scared of speaking out even today. Lance reinforced this during his time as "patron" (witness Bassons and Simeoni) and this has damaged cycling more than the actual cheating of any individual.
- There appears to be lots of evidence that the UCI are massively corrupt. The latest move by them to question the durastiction of USADA contravenes the WADA code. To be a member of the IOC it is a prerequisite that you follow the WADA code. If the UCI continue the corruption and back Lance against the USADA cycling will be removed from the Olympics. To say that would not be good for cycling is somewhat of an understatement!
- So to people who say this is a witch hunt, you are wrong. This is the unravelling of potentially the biggest corruption sport has ever seen. To people who say there is no evidence, you are wrong, there is evidence all the way back to the missed cancer diagnosis right up to the dodgy bio passport results in his comeback tour.
Millar is a good example.
Millar is someone who said exactly what he needed to a)sell some books and b) get another ride; because he is a professional cyclist and had not yet done enough to retire off the sport.
You know hes still my hero too. Irrational? I'm in denial? Or what he achieved was bigger than cycling? He'll continue to be my hero. Sorry if that offends and no I can't change my opinion on the subject.
I thought if he was ever 'caught' or stripped of his titles I'd dread the day/I'd turn on him. I didn't.
hora - fair enough - and I respect that.
In the mean time, I missed this, from the BBC website yesterday...
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19413613 ]UCI offered free legal advice[/url]
As many of us have stated / alluded, the real story isn't necessarily about doping - it's this....
The International Cycling Union (UCI) says it has been contacted by up to 20 sports lawyers offering free legal representation following the decision of the United States Anti-Doping Agency's (Usada) to ban Lance Armstrong for life for doping offences.
The BBC understands that the UCI is now weighing up two specific offers from UK-based lawyers.[SNIP]
Trevor Watkins, head of the sports division at international law firm Pinsent Masons, agrees that "fundamental issues about the structure of sport" are at stake."It is right that Usada should ensure we have a level playing field and its role is clear," he said. "But the UCI's role, as the international federation, is also clear.
[b]"What's not clear is what happens when one body tries to impose a judgement on the other. We need to know who does what. [/b]
The UCI had previously challenged Usada's right to proceed against Armstrong, writing to the agency's chief executive Travis Tygart, demanding that he submit whatever evidence he has to a panel set up by cycling's world governing body.
The [b]UCI has since dropped this demand under pressure from the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada),[/b] the main organisation in the fight against drugs in sport, [b]and the International Olympic Committee (IOC)[/b], which runs the Olympic Games and provides Wada with half of its funding.
The BBC has spoken to another leading sports lawyer who is scathing in his criticism of the UCI's role in this process.The lawyer, who wished to remain anonymous as he has a professional interest in the case, said Wada's rules do not give an international federation seniority over a national anti-doping agency in cases of this type.
He also pointed out that Usada was within its grounds to push on with its investigation under the UCI's own "discovery rule", which states that whichever agency comes into evidence of cheating has the authority to pursue the case.
He also believes the [b]governing body's position has been compromised by suggestions it was complicit in Armstrong's cheating[/b].
[b]There is one key issue that everybody agrees on, though: the UCI's decision to effectively come out in support of Armstrong will not only be based on the legal merits of its case[/b]. [b][That's an [u]outstanding[/u] statement...][/b]
With the IOC, Wada and cycling fans around the world watching closely, the UCI must weigh up the political costs of backing such a divisive figure, particularly if the evidence he has sought to contain reaches the public domain anyway.
So, do the UCI want to dance, or are they going to shuffle off into the dark corner and order another beer
EDIT: if they have sense they will shuffle off. if there is any integrity they will all resign and disband.
I suspect[hope]some agency may go after them which would be no bad thing.
Lance continues to be my hero. As a cancer survivor, I know it is difficult to come back and perform. I don't know how they banned him but he will always be an inspiration to me,"
You can admire him for surving cancer, you can admire him for Livestrong [ though I think the money could be better spent and it is as much a vehicle for LA as it is for cancer charity work] but he is still a drugs cheat on a bike and that is not admirable nor is how he treated people who spoke out about it.
The USADA seem to be acting on little more than what is already common knowledge plus the 'testimony' of several aggreived parties, all of whom have something to gain from a guilty verdict.
People keep saying this - perhap sthey do have an ageneda and amotive to lie against LA but it is equally clear that LA has a reason to lie as well to them about his guilt as well. If you want to throw this stone you have to throw it at both parties. What have they all got to gain from guilty as well - we dont even know who al lthe witnesses are so that is just a guess/slur on your part. Again LA has clearly got something to gain from a not guilty verdict. It spart of the myth that everyone is out to get him when in reality he was [largely] out to get anyoine who spoke out.
Without any concrete evidence that the rules were broken at the time they were in place surely surely we are looking at a case built on hearsay and circumstance?
Witnesses who saw him dope are not hearsay as they actually saw it happen , it is witness testimony.
I really hope this triggers the collapse of the UCI's hierarchy (especially McQuaid) but sadly it won't. FIFA manage to survive despite all the corruption allegations, I'm sure the UCI probably will to. How they can be allowed to have a profit-making side business making money from the expansion into the Asian racing market whilst using the UCI to force world tour teams to attend them is beyond me. Accepting 'donations' from riders that have tested positive is not stupid it's corrupt. And all the while they're destroying women's cycling by effectively ignoring it.
I'm glad WADA gave them a slap though when they tried to bully USADA into dropping the LA investigation. I guess they'll now just accept the ruling grudgingly to avoid the spotlight shining on them any more.
hora - Member
Or what he achieved was bigger than cycling?
"I cannont be disqualified from cycling! I AM CYCLING!"
But seriously, no.
Or what he achieved was bigger than cycling?
Was he riding 800cc wheels? Is that how he won all those tours?
Hmm, the post from rkk01 would suggest that this is not going to end anytime soon.Offers of legal advice from lawyers with "an interest in the outcome" Can't be good to see that and you name in the same article.
[i]Was he riding 800cc wheels? Is that how he won all those tours?[/i]
Aw, Gawd !. I haven't even got my 29" or 650b bikes yet.
I'm falling so far behind the times.
😉
Someone a few pages back mentioned the forthcoming Tyler Hamilton book...
[img] 
[/img]
Considering a purchase... presuming there's no injunction taken out against publication.
Has anyone heard whether there has been any legal wrangling over publication?
Someone a few pages back mentioned the forthcoming Tyler Hamilton book...Considering a purchase... presuming there's no injunction taken out against publication.
Has anyone heard whether there has been any legal wrangling over publication?
Publication date has been brought forward 2 weeks. I don't know if that's because:
a) it's all been cleared legally and they want to get it to market quicker to cash in on LA's 'situation'
b) they expect two weeks of extra legal-wrangling so it will actually come out roughly as planned
c) someone thought it would be a good idea
p.s. also considering a purchase but UK publication seems to be Sep 18th still so it's likely that anything interesting in it will be in the public domain by then.
Daniel Coyle - he's written a few (supporting) books about LA - odd co author..?!
Reading back on this a few people seem to think the USADA have no evidence - they shadowed the federal investigation into the misuse of funds - they have sworn grand jury testimony from a lot of witnesses - both ex team mates, ex team staff and other people. If youre called before the grand jury you tell the truth or end up in jail - end of - hence the supporting witness statements. Its these statements that LA doesnt want anyone to read or hear about.
The misuse of funds trial was not dropped it was closed down on the day they were about to charge people - to date no explanation has been given for this, the people running the investigation have still not been told why.
And again this witchunt thing - read the charge sheet this was not a vendetta against one person - it was an investigation into 5 people running a complex trafficking and supplying ring from 1999 to 2010 - its the USADA's job to investigate drugs cheats in sports I dont think doing what youre paid to do is akin to a witchunt!
"its the USADA's job to investigate drugs cheats in sports I dont think doing what youre paid to do is akin to a witchunt!"
I agree but is it their job to judge as well? That's what I do not like. They have a vested interest that is not questioned in a court, this gives them to much power and allows the likes of LA to use the unfair excuse. The USADA should now have to put this in front of a judge or another body or person that is seperate from both sides. This should apply in all contested cases unless there is an admission of guilt.
you seem confused they dont judge a panel of three experts [ all approved by them] - "judge".
Perhaps it should just be a list approved by WADA rather than by them?
I dont see anyway round this and it is not different from the state picking your judge or magistrate. It is not inherently unfair though it may be depending on who is picked.
Part of the reason for this was speed.
Remember the days [ contador recently as well actually] where drug cheats were racing till the trial was held and all results anulled etc.
This charge has been repeated but the federal judge ruled that their processes were sufficient to ensure that LA would get a fair trial - he did not mention that in his refusal to take part press release.
This should apply in all [b][u]contested[/u][/b] cases unless there is an admission of guilt.
Fair enough - but how does that relate to this case.
This case specifically [b]IS NOT BEING [u]CONTESTED[/u][/b]
The USADA should now have to put this in front of a judge or another body or person that is seperate from both sides. This should apply in all contested cases unless there is an admission of guilt.
If Armstrong (or Drs Ferrari and Garcia) had contested the charges that is exactly what would have happened. The evidence would have been presented by USADA and contested by the 'defendants' in front of a panel of three arbitration judges.
This is the process that will apply for Dr Celaya, Trainer Marti and DS/Boss Bruyneel.
I agree but is it their job to judge as well?
LA was offered arbitration in front of a panel consisting of a USADA rep, one of LA's reps (prob one of his ex george bush lawyers) and a mutually agreed on person (ie independent agreed on by both LA and USADA) he turned this down stating it was unfair and knowing full well what the outcome would be.
So yes in this case it was right of them to, and in fact their job to, judge.
Also this is what LA signed up for in the agreement of his US racing licence.
Don't forgeet the UCI had the exact same starting point - testimony from landis and hamilton, but instead of pursuing it they brushed it off stating they couldnt trust the source, USADA pursued it making a case and the UCI look very silly in the process.
Also this is what LA signed up for in the agreement of his US racing licence.
We all tend to forget about these little details when we sign a piece of paper.
My son started fencing earlier this year, and is coming on well. His club want him to enter competitions, so he needs to upgrade his British Fencing membership to a competition membership category - and has to sign up to the WADA code...
At this stage it may be worth pointing out a "coincidence".
The federal investigation into USPS was dropped on the eve of charges being issued due to political pressure. FACT
The lead investigator is puzzled and angry at this as he knew he had a stong case. FACT
The senator responsible for the case is related to Lance Armstrong. COINCIDENCE?
Junkyard
"This charge has been repeated but the federal judge ruled that their processes were sufficient to ensure that LA would get a fair trial - he did not mention that in his refusal to take part press release."
Re read all the judges comments. This system as it stands does not allow independant judgement. That suposedly comes later if you appeal, independance should be first. I am not against the Armstrong prosicution but would prefer to judged by a judge and not the investigators. Would you like to go into an arbitration meeting meeting with a police officer that investgated your alledged crime?
The "you agreed when you signed" is true but who reads how you will dealt with in any disaplinery process at any point of their career unless they are in trouble, let alone the sport they are in. A few years ago to much coffee would have got you banned (and it has) without any viable way round the process without being seen as guilty first. The whole process has to be seen to be fair, this then removes the possibility of the whitchunt claim. I do realise this may not always be possible given the time things take and the leaking of information.
For those who think I'm talking about LA, No. It's the process that I do not like.
On another brighter note, anyone read the story about the guy on the board/director of the Danish Cycling Federation who has had a positive test in a Vets event. He was a team manager at one time also. Do you think his is friends with Riis?
The senator responsible for the case is related to Lance Armstrong.
Is that true?
Not that I doubt you but who is the senator and what is his relationship to the Texan?
glitchy?
A few years ago to much coffee would have got you banned
iirc it was something like a caffeine level equivalent to drinking 15 cups of strong coffee in an hour, so pretty clearly taking caffeine as a stimulant, not just drinking a bit too much coffee with breakfast.
but who reads how you will dealt with in any disaplinery process at any point of their career
I am pretty sure that when Armstrong first got his racing license that may have been the case, but when he came out of retirement I am equally sure that he knew exactly the process he was signing up to.
This system as it stands does not allow independant judgement. That suposedly comes later if you appeal, independance should be first. I am not against the Armstrong prosicution but would prefer to judged by a judge and not the investigators. Would you like to go into an arbitration meeting meeting with a police officer that investgated your alledged crime?
But that's just not true. People are falling for spin.
[i]Q: Does the athlete have the right to a hearing if USADA proceeds with adjudication as a result of a positive or elevated test, or other potential rule violation?
A: Yes. The athlete has the right to contest the sanction sought by USADA.
The athlete may elect to proceed to a hearing before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) using a single arbitrator (or a three-arbitrator panel, if requested by either of the parties) selected from a pool of the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) arbitrators, who shall also be AAA arbitrators. [/i]
So in Armstrong's case, as with so many others, he's been accused by USADA, and has the option to arbitration by the American Arbitration Association.
