Cyclists

[Fil]

It's still a UCI pro tour with mostly UCI teams taking part. As the governing body, they still have to shoulder the blame for turning a blind eye to doping.

[disciple]

Jonathan Vaughters current manager of team Garmin-Sharp, talks about why he doped and how it damages the sport. Also a rather encouraging message in there too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opini ... .html?_r=1

As much as I dislike doping in sport and believe anyone caught doping should receive a lifetime ban, I think it's pretty bloody awesome people like Vaughters/Millar/etc are coming forward and talking openly and honestly about it all.

[carolen]

Lance Armstrong throws in the towel and says he will 'no longer address the issue, regardless of circumstances'. USADA promptly bans him for life and (at least attempts to) strip him of his seven Tour De France victories.

Ouch. For the entire world of cycling.

[Surfr]

Maybe now we can move on and celebrate the new wave of clean cyclists.

[disciple]

Prompted no doubt by the Texas judge (old boys club) dismissing his case questioning the USADA's authority to prosecute - if you can't play the ball then play the man etc..

You'd have thought he'd let this go to trial, there are 7 titles and his reputation at stake her after all.

It's almost like he knows the titles would go but he thinks he can keep retain his reputation by giving up the fight and issuing the above propaganda laced statement.

Not the greatest of outcomes really, but has he ever really given a shit about the sport?

[disciple]

So this is not over, this is aimed at an organised network of doping.

There are 5 more hearings :

• Johan Bruyneel, a current "consultant" manager of the Radioshack-Nissan team and former manager at US Postal, Discovery and Astana
• Dr Pedro Celaya, a team doctor at Radioshack-Nissan and formerly with US Postal, Discovery and ONCE
• Dr Luis del Moral, a Spanish sports doctor and former US Postal team medic
• Dr Michele Ferrari, an Italian sports doctor and "family friend" of Armstrong
• Joseph Marti, Spanish coach who has been working with Alberto Contador and formerly of US Postal

All 5 are still involved in cycling. I wonder if any of those will fold.

Bruyneel today, on his blog :

Today, I’m disappointed for Lance and for cycling in general that things have reached a stage where Lance feels that he has had enough and is no longer willing to participate in USADA’s campaign against him. Lance has never withdrawn from a fair fight in his life so his decision today underlines what an unjust process this has been.

I hope that it will soon be determined that the case that USADA initiated against me should never have gotten as far as it has. Due to the sensitive nature of legal proceedings, I have been advised that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

Johan Bruyneel

[pogo]

My view is this is very unfair on Armstrong for two main reasons. First the normal process for banning someone for drug taking, testing two samples, is scientifically rigorous and fair: it has to be as if you're going to deprive someone of their livelihood you have to be 100% sure. It's not clear this process is anything like as certain. It's not a criminal process, put before an independent jury and requiring proof "beyond reasonable doubt". It's an arbitration process, and it's unclear what criteria is being used, both to decide to go after Armstrong and in determining his guilt or innocence.

Second it seems many riders will escape the same fate, as this is the USADA which presumably can only take action against US athletes. Neither the UCI or WADA have indicated they will introduce similar procedures for cyclists of other nations. So what happens to Armstrong's tour results? It will be unfair if someone else gets them simply because they are outside the jurisdiction of the USADA. But if the UCI decided to do the fair thing and void all the results in races he won it might be sued by such riders.

Such rules need to be set and decided at an international level, for international sports. If the BOA can't impose lifetime Olympic bans for drug taking British athletes it's unclear why the USADA can do the same to its athletes, or why it can devise its own evidence standards and procedures over and above those used by WADA and the UCI.

It's worth quoting the judge that denied Armstrong's attempt to stop the USADA's action through the US court. The judge basically said the court had no jurisdiction, but that does not mean he agreed with the USADA (source):

there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA' s apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him.

Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum. The issue is further complicated by USA Cycling's late-breaking show of support for UCI, and apparent opposition to USADA's proceeding — a wrinkle which does not change the court's legal analysis, but only confirms that these matters should be resolved internally, by the parties most affected, rather than by edict of this court.

As mystifying as USADA's election to proceed at this date and in this manner may be, it is equally perplexing that these three national and international bodies are apparently unable to work together to accomplish their shared goal — the regulation and promotion of cycling. However, if these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts.

[disciple]

My view is this is very unfair on Armstrong for two main reasons.

I'm not really sure how you can call it unfair given he has the option of a hearing with neutral third party arbitration - which he's turned down.

First the normal process for banning someone for drug taking, testing two samples, is scientifically rigorous and fair: it has to be as if you're going to deprive someone of their livelihood you have to be 100% sure.

No test is 100%, and every test has a different level of accuracy on a positive result than it does on a negative result.

Drug testing during the Armstrong era wasn't really known for being particularly rigourous. David Millar's story is of relevance here, he never "failed" a drug test either, yet was caught, and (unlike Lance) subsequently admitted doping.

So what happens to Armstrong's tour results?

Yep, that's going to be really interesting.

It's anyone's guess, though this isn't really the USADA's problem.

Such rules need to be set and decided at an international level

They are, by the WADA. Drugs for "personal use" are one thing, but pushing drugs on others is another matter entirely.

It's worth quoting the judge that denied Armstrong's attempt to stop the USADA's action through the US court. The judge basically said the court had no jurisdiction, but that does not mean he agreed with the USADA

Well he wasn't asked to agree/disagree, he hasn't seen the evidence. The judge did however conclude that Armstrong would get a fair hearing, which I think is what matters.

[pogo]

Well he wasn't asked to agree/disagree, he hasn't seen the evidence. The judge did however conclude Armstrong would get a fair hearing from the USADA, which I think is what matters.

No, quite the opposite; again the judge wrote:

Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum.

But the court concluded it did not have jurisdiction.

[disciple]

You have to read all of the judge's statement.

Texan Judge : "On balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process".

How's that "quite the opposite" of a fair hearing?

Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum.

So that's the judge saying (s)he's concerned because the USADA appears at odds with the UCI. (which isn't surprising given there are suspicions the USADA may have evidence the UCI were complicit)

So yes it raises questions, but on balance, the judge says..... (see top quote).

But the court concluded it did not have jurisdiction.

Where?

[pogo]

You have to read all of the judge's statement.

Texan Judge : "On balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process".

That was as one of Armstrong's main arguments was lack of due process. due process ≠ fair, and the judge wrote (referring to the USADA and UCI)

Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum

In more detail on due process and on jurisdiction, the judge wrote.

With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the court agrees they are without merit. Alternatively, even if the court has jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, the court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation's courts.

I.e. Armstrong should take up his remaining claims at a body such as CAS which overseas sport and has jurisdiction over both the USADA and UCI and exists to arbitrate over such disputes. The court feels it has no such jurisdiction.

On what happens next CBC.ca also surveys the field of second and third place finishers in Le Tour to see who might inherit Armstrong's titles:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/cycling/story/ ... rance.html

Not many there who haven't themselves been excluded or at least implicated. Really the only fair thing, given the lack of physical evidence and the fact that other riders won't have their cases examined like Armstrong, would be for the UCI to void all the results of the Tours that Armstrong won.

[disciple]

That was as one of Armstrong's main arguments was lack of due process.

Which the judge threw out.

Still struggling to see how the judge saying she's satisfied Armstrong will receive due process is "quite the opposite" to her saying he'll receive a fair trial.

Is it really a surprise that the UCI don't want the USADA to shine a light on what's gone on for all to see?

In more detail on due process and on jurisdiction, the judge wrote.

With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the court agrees they are without merit. Alternatively, even if the court has jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, the court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation's courts.

You do realise (s)he's saying Armstrong's claims are without merit? Not the USADA's.

I.e. Armstrong should take up his remaining claims at a body such as CAS which overseas sport and has jurisdiction over both the USADA and UCI and exists to arbitrate over such disputes. The court feels it has no such jurisdiction.

Which oddly is very close to what the USADA are offering, a hearing with independent third party arbitration. Which Lance has turned down, and in the process thrown away any chance of appeal, the ability to compete in any WADA affiliated competition, and been stripped of all titles since 1990 something.

You'd be forgiven for thinking he had something to hide.

[pogo]

That was as one of Armstrong's main arguments was lack of due process.

Which the judge threw out.
Still struggling to see how the judge saying she's satisfied Armstrong will receive due process is "quite the opposite" to her saying he'll receive a fair trial.

As he (the judge) wrote

Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum.

Both/either forum refers to the UCI and USADA. He thinks neither would give Armstrong 'fair consideration'.

You do realise (s)he's saying Armstrong's claims are without merit? Not the USADA's.

He writes the due process claims are without merit, but the remaining claims are outside the courts jurisdiction.

Which oddly is very close to what the USADA are offering, a hearing with independent third party arbitration.

But there are many problems with it. How can he be banned for life when that's supposed to only happen to repeat offenders according to anti-doping rules? Bodies like USADA are supposed only to administer tests and determine guilt: sanctions should be imposed by sporting bodies. WADA rules impose an eight year statue of limitations on such actions, so how are they wiping his results back to 1998.

I.e. it's not the arbitrators, who I'm sure are fine and fair minded people, that are the problem. It's that the whole process seems a massive overreach by USADA, rewriting rules and giving itself powers and authority well beyond its remit.

[disciple]

How can he be banned for life when that's supposed to only happen to repeat offenders according to anti-doping rules?

Already answered this one.

Go read the charges, they aren't just "Lance bought something from the pharmacy and took some drugs once". With any drug prosecution it's pretty standard for a pusher to be treated more harshly than a user, they're not saying he's a victim here, "quite the opposite". Ferrari, Luis Garcia del Moral and Pepe Marti have already received lifetime bans.

As for how they can take away titles back to 1998? To be honest if there's evidence he doped during that period I'm not sure it matters a jot. The USADA think there are grounds for this, I'm fine with that, this only matters to someone found guilty that doesn't want to lose his spoils. Cake and eat it springs to mind.

Besides the USADA made it very clear that that was their intention, so I'm not sure you can call it unfair given he was provided with ample opportunity to contest it.

Both/either forum refers to the UCI and USADA. He thinks neither would give Armstrong 'fair consideration'.

No, he says there are doubts. When you have two governing bodies (whose stated goals are supposed to be the same) at loggerheads over whether a hearing should actually happen, it's a good indicator something else is going on - hence the judge has doubts.

People nave raised question on the UCI's impartiality in the past. It's the USADA that's (thankfully) done all the groundwork in bringing this case while the UCI seems to have sat back and not really given a shit...

Until this was coming to a head at which point it seems the UCI were, all of a sudden... This is our jurisdiction, please show us all your evidence, we'll take it from here from here, thankyouverymuch.

USADA's comment on this was, doing so would be "like the fox guarding the henhouse", the UCI "have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired."

The UCI had no problem when USADA's arbitrators found Floyd Landis guilty of doping. And they had no problem when USADA issued an eight-year ban for Tyler Hamilton. So why intervene to claim jurisdiction now?

Speaking out against your governing body is pretty brave, it's common knowledge that at least one of the witnesses has already accused the UCI of taking bribes.

And so when the UCI began trying to strong-arm their way in the WADA stepped in, and they (again thankfully) sided with the USADA, so this hearing seems to be the correct choice.

So now, let's get it all out there, shine some light on it and see what's gone on.

[(o)(o)]

Everyone is doping in top level sports. How else can you keep up with a pack of athletes who are achieving 104% of the physical capability of a human due to their taking performance enhancing drugs.

What.. are you going to come last instead ?

The "rigorous and scientific" tests only catch a minority and it's not going to be those who avoid detection is it.

Lance Armstrong is innocent till proven guilty and all that, but come on.. how many witnesses do you need ?

Here are some comments from Harley Johnstone who has the inside track as he's been involved pro level cycling.