[Closed] Lance, latest have we done it yet.

I remember Ferrari once saying something along the lines of "if I'm the devil how do you qualify Indurain's doctor?"

This website has a well-researched and comprehensive answer to it's own question:

http://www.didlancearmstrongdope.com/

Indurain's comments are valid, for years the rules were/are that to be convicted of doping an athlete had to fail both the A & B samples provided....this hasn't happened in Lance's case and yet his conviction stands on the basis of testimonies and a retro tested single sample....I can understand Indurain becoming twitchy abound the moving of the goal posts.

Anti doping authorities should either convict according to the two positive tests of the same sample they themselves stipulate or they shouldn't convict at all and instead improve their testing regime.

The new situation seems to be that if enough people come forward and testify that you doped then you will be convicted of doping....not sure that sits comfortably to be honest.

for years the rules were/are that to be convicted of doping an athlete had to fail both the A & B samples provided.

The new situation seems to be that if enough people come forward and testify that you doped then you will be convicted of doping....not sure that sits comfortably to be honest.

The new situation seems to be that if enough people come forward and testify that you doped then you will be convicted of doping....not sure that sits comfortably to be honest

Have you heard any evidence that shows Lance didn't dope? There are lots of people with very detailed and independently corroborated eye witness testimony proving that he did. Don't you think that if it was all a big lie, a massive conspiracy to take down the biggest name in cycling, there would be someone able to give some evidence that shows it.

Not one single person has come forward. Not one shred of evidence that the 26 people are lying. Not one bit of doubt. I'm sure if any doubt did exist Lance wouldn't have been able to be convicted but it really is true.

Contrast this with Greg Lemond when Armstrong promised to find 10 people to testify he doped as revenge for Lemond criticising Lance. Not one person came forward.

He refuses to allow this and where it was done it tested positive.

Technically, it didn't. OK, it did but because it can't be backed up, it's called an Adverse Analytical Finding rather than a postive. Happens where the sample has been stored incorrectly, there's no B sample to back it up, procedure hasn't been followed, all sorts of reasons. It's fairly heavily weighted in the athletes favour (similar to the way a drink drive test is weighted in the driver's favour).

However, the adverse analytical findings, combined with the testimonies and the evidence stack up to more than enough proof. I was always one of the "innocent until proven guilty" voices on here with regards to LA and I've got plenty of experience in anti-doping - the protocols, procedures and testing - but sorry, this is more than enough evidence to convict on.

OK, it did but because it can't be backed up, it's called an Adverse Analytical Finding rather than a postive. Happens where the sample has been stored incorrectly, there's no B sample to back it up, procedure hasn't been followed, all sorts of reasons.

I can also think of no reason why a clean rider would object.
You are right though it tested positive but it is not enough to convict.

jfletch....i'm not for one moment trying to say Lance didnt dope, what i'm uncomfortable with is procedure not being followed and yet a conviction is still secured.

I work in the forensic environment and part of that is taking blood for drink drive offenses....if there is a single procedural error during the blood test it becomes invalid and the accused gets off.....even if the blood sample is swimming with alcohol....rules are rules so to speak.

With the Armstrong case rules seem to have been made up as USADA went along.....it just doesnt feel right to me.

jfletch....i'm not for one moment trying to say Lance didnt dope, what i'm uncomfortable with is procedure not being followed and yet a conviction is still secured.

rules seem to have been made up as USADA went along

criticising this and the procedure is just part of the LA spin IMHO
We have people complaining he always passed a test, people complaining the procedure was just made up [ even though he never failed a test] by them even though the official sports bodies recognise it and its judgement even the UCI and LA sponsors,PHIL LIGETT and a federal judge ruled it to be legitimate and LA signed up to it [ granted he had to to compete].

You will need to be specific here about what rules were broken as I am not sure what you actual point is.
I would like you to explain why litigious lover LA did not once more rip them apart in the courts if it was all so shoddy.

The new situation seems to be that if enough people come forward and testify that you doped then you will be convicted of doping....

But the point is, he wasn't banned just for doping. He was banned for being instrumental in a doping conspiracy. You can't test for that.

Just as a note to the eyewitness testimony thing;

At least 80,000 prosecutions in this country every year rely largely on eyewitness testimony.

This is for the US. The main flaw seems to be through miss identifying the guilty party.

Although the flaws in witness testimony become something of a moot point when there are 26 of them.

i'm not for one moment trying to say Lance didnt dope, what i'm uncomfortable with is procedure not being followed and yet a conviction is still secured.

...
With the Armstrong case rules seem to have been made up as USADA went along.....it just doesnt feel right to me.

You've been listening to the briefings from Team Armstrong too much, in my opinion.

USADA set out in great detail

- their justification for results management authority
- their justification for denial of Statue of Limitation
- their reasonings for the UCI having a conflict of interest in this case

In each case they set out case law/history, relevant licensing/doping codes, etc.

So, if Armstrong has been wiped from the Tour records and they're going to start coming after the money as well....

Why don't the UCI/WADA/ASO/etc also go after the following for their race titles and/or winnings?
From 98
Pantani
Ullrich
Meier
Di Grande

99
Zülle
Dufaux

2000
Moreau
Heras
Virenque (I mean, FFS, if anyone...)
Mancebo

2001
Gonzalez
Sevilla

2002
Rumsas
Leipheimer

2003
Vinokourov
Hamilton
Basso (Sort of)

2004
Klöden
Pereiro

2005
Rasmussen
Landis

2006
Debatable!

2007
Contador (FFS, he's still racing!)
Valverde
Popovych
Astarloza

2008
Kohl
Vande Velde
Schleck
Valjavec

20011
Danielson

See? The problem here is that while Lance is clearly guilty, so are so many other riders. Why are the "authorities" not also stripping them of their finishing positions, seeking recompense for their race earnings etc?

The UCI is a farce.

[i]Why don't the UCI/WADA/ASO/etc also go after the following for their race titles and/or winnings?[/i]

In the UCI's case, because they're incompetent and worse.

But a bunch of s**t is about to hit the fan with the Ferrari case in Italy.

Virenque - what an absolute gobs*%te

Nike dropped lance Armstrong but didn't drop Tiger Woods. So I guess in America it's ok to cheat on your wife but not on your bike.

Ha ha, just tweeted by Chris Rock

Why don't the UCI/WADA/ASO/etc also go after the following for their race titles and/or winnings?
From 98
Pantani

I don't think they can go after him unless they have a good medium

Irrelevant, Junky. 🙂 If he doped, his title should be removed. A precedent has been set.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France#Status_of_Tour_de_France_winners ]So...Strip the title from Anquetil, Aimar, Merckx, Thévenet, Zoetemelk, Fignon, Riis, Ullrich, Pantani, Landis and Contador. [/url]

If we take the legal precedent of (rightly) stripping Armstrong of titles, then the above must follow.

Also, if we take the above, Contador must never be allowed to race again. He [u][i]tested positive[/i][/u].

Nike dropped lance Armstrong but didn't drop Tiger Woods. So I guess in America it's ok to cheat on your wife but not on your bike.

A friend was in the US over the summer and a survey of US public opinion held that Woods was worse than Armstrong. That said it was before the USADA report.

Dont disagree if someone wants to but I think a truth and reconciliation makes more sense and ridding the sport of the cheaters who are still in teams.

i think having given Bertie a lifetime ban would have got the attention of the cheats tbh
Something draconian needs to be done to rid the sports of the cheats

iirc Ashenden thought his biological passport showed signs of systematic doping but WADA?? would not consider it

i think having given Bertie a lifetime ban would have got the attention of the cheats tbh

There needs to be a massive stamping on it. Not waiting until someone is retired, past it, etc.

Bertie doped. That's a shame, as I loved watching his dancing climbing style. But, he doped. That's a fact. If the UCI et al really cared, they'd have slapped him with a lifetime ban, as you suggest.

From now on, I'd like to see this in the pro peloton. Get caught doping? Lifetime ban. AND repay any earnings/winnings earned in your career to date.

In fact, I'd like to see that in all sports.

Otherwise, why not set up a clean sport, and a doped sport. For example, the "wrestling" on American TV. They can take whatever the blinking flip they like for all I care. But, real sport? No. Keep it clean, thanks.

jfletch....i'm not for one moment trying to say Lance didnt dope, what i'm uncomfortable with is procedure not being followed and yet a conviction is still secured

But the procedure has been followed to the letter. The WADA code clearly allows for other evidence, not just positive tests, to be used to convict. In fact it is widely recognised by WADA and national agencies that non analytical evidence is at the forefront of the fight against drugs in sport as although testing is important it is likely the cheats will always be one step ahead.

If Lance had opted for arbitration he could have called his own witnesses, presented his own evidence etc. he chose not to. Instead he issued a press release which you seem to have swallowed.

Irrelevant, Junky. If he doped, his title should be removed. A precedent has been set.

The issue here is that although it is common knowledge these people doped, they were not banned for the period of the results. So in the same way as LA still has his rainbow jersey because it was before 1998 when the USADA ban starts, Pantani can keep his yellow.

And this is he way it should be because if the anti doping agencies don't stick to the letter of the rules they will lose credibility.

Now I'm no STW legal expert, but I think that handing out lifetime bans is pretty tricky to due, due to restriction of trade law isn't it? I was surprised that lala was given one tbh. Didn't Renault F1 boss Flavio Briatore have his lifetime ban reduced for crashgate?

iirc Ashenden thought his biological passport showed signs of systematic doping but WADA?? would not consider it

Funnily enough if this is true it would have been the UCI who would have brought a bio passport case. It's a conflict of interest because it might not look good to open a case against your star rider.

If it was up to WADA I'm sure this would be at CAS now.

I suspect one reason for going for Armstrong is his 'legend' status amongst general public - has more impact in terms of negative publicity and to act as a warning. Plus they may well yet go after the others.
Also Armstrong has made a lot of enemies it seems, more than the others? So more people wanted to see him punished...

http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/10/23/the-apology-lance-armstrong-will-never-give/

So, if Armstrong has been wiped from the Tour records and they're going to start coming after the money as well....

Why don't the UCI/WADA/ASO/etc also go after the following for their race titles and/or winnings?

Well other than the fact there are in some cases no actions to carry out and in others they've been done. To give you a few different examples:

Basso was found guilty of intention to dope. There was no proof he'd actually doped but he got a two year ban which meant that for two years he won no titles, and won no money. Hard to give back things you never got.

Schleck (Frank) was found not guilty of doping. Hard to strip titles from someone you've found not guilty.

Danielson confessed and his race results and prize money from March 1 2005 to September 23 2006 have been stripped.

So CFH, what exactly was your point? Armstrong has been stripped of titles from the period he was found to have doped. The lifetime ban is for the "conspiracy" of doping he engaged in. He's been treated for the race results exactly how (most of) the others have been treated. I'd agree that Leipheimer has got off relatively lightly though.

So CFH, what exactly was your point? Armstrong has been stripped of titles from the period he was found to have doped

This +1

Not really sure what your getting at Flashy?

Lance, latest have we done it yet.

YES yes we have.

chortle 😉

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20051664 ]Cav's words[/url]

And following the [url= http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=ODgzNA&MenuId=MTI2Mjc&LangId=1&BackLink=%2Ftemplates%2FUCI%2FUCI7%2Flayout%2Easp%3FMenuId%3DMTI2Mjc%26LangId%3D1 ]UCI Statement [/url] published Monday, they've added some additional documents (linked at bottom of page) which still question USADA's methods & jurisdiction.

[quote=Nobby ]And following the UCI Statement published Monday, they've added some additional documents (linked at bottom of page) which still question USADA's methods & jurisdiction.

From the document:

a) Jurisdiction
For the UCI jurisdiction is no longer an issue at this stage.

Seems they're quite happy with it but it's interesting that they really do seem to be nibbling at USADA saying that they should have involved the UCI because the UCI would have sided with them anyway. Given McQuaid's comments between the announcement and the documentation being released, I think that's a bit odd for them to say realy.

Interesting piece on Millar in the Times today, suggesting that he might be getting a little bit too keen to condemn others while ignoring his own past.

atlaz - I read the 'at this stage' as lip service due to several references that LA could, if he choses, contest jurisdiction through arbitration or the courts.

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci?newsfeed=true ]Seems I'm not alone.[/url]

Bertie doped. That's a shame, as I loved watching his dancing climbing style. But, he doped. That's a fact. If the UCI et al really cared, they'd have slapped him with a lifetime ban, as you suggest.

Hmmm, the CAS does not agree that he doped, they reckon it was a contaminated food supplement:

The Panel after review of the 4000-page file and thorough deliberations, noted first that it was not disputed by the parties that Alberto Contador tested positive with clenbuterol and thereby committed an anti-doping rule violation. Neither was it disputed that in order for the Athlete to avoid a two year sanction, he had to establish, on a balance of probability a) how the prohibited Substance entered his body and b) that he committed no fault or no significant fault or negligence.

Alberto Contador alleged that the presence of clenbuterol in his system originated from eating contaminated meat. The UCI and WADA submitted that it was more likely that the adverse analytical finding of the Athlete was caused by a blood transfusion or by the ingestion of a food supplement than by the consumption of contaminated meat.

The Panel found that there were no established facts that would elevate the possibility of meat contamination to an event that could have occurred on a balance of probabilities. Unlike certain other countries, notably outside Europe, Spain is not known to have a contamination problem with clenbuterol in meat. Furthermore, no other cases of athletes having tested positive to clenbuterol allegedly in connection with the consumption of Spanish meat are known.

The Panel concluded that both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytical findings, but were however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced the presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement.

From

A lifetime ban for having a contaminated protein shake would seem a little unfair?

[url= http://www.cadelevans.com.au/cadelsdiary.aspx ]Cadel Evans[/url] has put a piece on his website.

"I hope that people remember that the events being uncovered mostly occurred seven or more years ago, amongst a minority of those involved in a sport which has already changed and moved on"

🙄

Something else for Cadel's website....

[img] [/img]

A lifetime ban for having a contaminated protein shake would seem a little unfair?

Meanwhile, over in the land of offialdom...
http://road.cc/content/news/69446-lance-armstrong-uci-and-usada-catch-22

This is all very entertaining. Athletes coming out with all sorts to either defend LA or to condemn him, the UCI, USADA and WADA having a spat over jurisdiction, rights and procedures.

If we had lifetime bans for first offences Armstrong would never have been caught.

First doping sanction - up to 4 years
Second doping sanction - life ban

I understand Cadel and Cav's frustrations that something that happened so long ago is affecting them now, callling their achivements into doubt. But they need to open their eyes and see what the fans are saying.

The fans will not accept this be brushed under the carpet, due to the trangressions of the whole sport they are now gulity until proven incocent and that is what they have to deal with. Hoping this will go away isn't enough, they need to condem the actions of the past, openely state that they don't dope and that anyone doping now is not welcome, they need to go above and beyond to be open and show they are not doping and they need to end the omerta. Only then will we start to have faith in the their achivements again.