Lance Armstrong To Lose All Tour de France Medals...

[Phantasee]

I'm with Simon. There are people who bring others down even if it doesn't profit them. And there is a sort of profit to be had in stripping Armstrong of his medals: the USADA and WADA have been embarassed again and again as all the other former Tour winners have been found to have been doping. They're trying to wipe that record out by wiping Armstrong's record out, and hope the historical record shows they managed to get them all, whether they all doped or not, or whether they can actually prove it or not.

So... Let me get this straight... They are saving themselves embarrassment by going after the only championship cyclist most Americans have ever heard of? How the fuck does that work, magic?

The anti-doping agencies don't give a fuck about the sport. Their interest is in catching dopers. Honestly, Sriad's post from Reddit makes a lot of sense. UCI should have jurisdiction, but WADA and USADA don't care and want to mount Armstrong above their fireplace. It is a witch hunt, even if they all dope.

[Thanas]

Oh yes, poor Lance Armstrong is totally a target of so many people who just hate him. It is not faaaaaaair.

Really.

[Flagg]

Oh yes, poor Lance Armstrong is totally a target of so many people who just hate him. It is not faaaaaaair.

Really.

But Thanas, he was in an unethical system! What was he to do, not participate? That's just insane!

[Phantasee]

Oh yes, poor Lance Armstrong is totally a target of so many people who just hate him. It is not faaaaaaair.

Really.

Thank you for that rebuttal, Herr Thanas. I completely concede my point, you have shown me the light.

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

Since Sriad posted up an anonymous argument for Armstrong, here's the case for the prosecution from a cycling forum I frequent.

you're a bit off.

After the 1998 Festina bombshell, there was no level playing field in 1999. Most were too scared to dope after the 1998 explosion and according to insiders there was even a sort of consensus growing among the members of the peloton that 1999 should be clean.

Too bad the guy with the jellow jersey tested positive only 1 week after the start of the 1999 Tour. It happened to be a guy who had just survived cancer miraculously and who happened to have a decent media appeal that the UCI wanted to profit from. So lucky for this guy, the UCI had his *** covered.

The scam was so obvious that all sincere intentions to race clean among many members of the peloton at the time were squashed in one go. It was the signal that you can still dope and that the UCI endulges it.

So it was Lance and the UCI who brought doping back at the forefront in 1999 in a short but very crucial timeframe, post-festina, in which the climate was in fact perfect for cycling to take the clean road.

Therefore, if you insist on claiming a level playing field (which you seem to do), at the very least don't claim it for 1999.

If Armstrong tested positive and the UCI covered it up...well. If we're judging the value of conspiracy theories, this one seems far more likely than the USADA, WADA and all of Armstrong's old US Postal/Discovery teammates and backroom staff engaging in a 13 year old witch-hunt just...because...

[Thanas]

Oh yes, poor Lance Armstrong is totally a target of so many people who just hate him. It is not faaaaaaair.

Really.

Thank you for that rebuttal, Herr Thanas. I completely concede my point, you have shown me the light.

There is no rebuttal needed against the conspiracy BS that requires multiple agencies from several countries to engage in a conspiracy to wreck a sport that is their livelihood.

[Simon_Jester]

Honestly, I don't care about professional cycling; if they want to pump each other full of steroids or not, it doesn't affect me very much.

But this argument reminds me of the whole "al-Awlaki is a very bad man, therefore fuck due process" thing that keeps coming up on this board. I don't even try to dispute that as a matter of fact, al-Awlaki was involved with terrorists- it's just that it never came up in a court of law, was never even forwarded to the legal systems' attention. A private board decided in a secret meeting to kill him, and did so.

I don't really care what the man did, I care about the sheer arrogance of it. The assertion that someone has a right to decide guilt or innocence in advance. To keep pursuing someone indefinitely. To do whatever they please to make sure that they're "finally brought to justice," long after the prosecuting authority has become a persecuting authority, trapped by the thrill of the chase.

Is there a huge difference of degree? Yes. Armstrong obviously isn't in any danger of getting blown up by a Hellfire missile. And he isn't accused of aiding or abetting any mass murders. This is all small change- nothing is at stake but reputations and a few million dollars.

But I don't see much structural difference between "obviously he's a doper so he should submit to private arbitrators paid by the guys who want to deny his medals" and "obviously he's a terrorist so he should surrender to the CIA guys who want to waterboard him and lock him in a prison to rot." In both cases, we're deciding guilt or innocence based on a gut feeling and "common sense." And based on that, we're expecting the suspect to make total submission to an authority which has every reason to be biased against him.

When the prosecuting authority is someone we dislike (like the National Security Advisor), then closed tribunals are bad. When the prosecuting authority is someone we like and the target someone we dislike, then double jeopardy and ten-year-old hearsay testimony are good.

It's intensely hypocritical.

Oh yes, poor Lance Armstrong is totally a target of so many people who just hate him. It is not faaaaaaair.

Really.

Nobody hates him. He's just a high profile target: the only cyclist in the US whose name is a household word, the guy with the ridiculous stretch in the record books. The guy who you can't prove didn't dope, since clean tests are inherently suspicious. And who people always wonder about, because he beat people who were, and doping should guarantee a win over a non-doper.

He makes a good head to put on a plaque on your wall, if you're a professional organization devoted to busting athletes for drug use. There doesn't even need to be a conspiracy.

[weemadando]

What's shitting me are all the people saying: "oh, who did it really hurt?"

Maybe all the riders who could have won/medalled? Who then missed out on that payday? And the sponsorships, endorsements, bookdeals etc that come afterwards?

I mean, there's clearly no harm done here.

[Irbis]

Oh, and one more thing. Why Armstrong says it's "unconstitutional"? Does he really expect someone will add anti-doping agencies to the constitution, or is it some kind of buzzword 'anti-dope bad, me hate'?

[OneEyedTeddyMcGrew]

The USADA statement in full.

Lance Armstrong Receives Lifetime Ban And Disqualification Of Competitive Results For Doping Violations Stemming From His Involvement In The United States Postal Service Pro-Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy

View PDF
August 24, 2012

USADA announced today that Lance Armstrong has chosen not to move forward with the independent arbitration process and as a result has received a lifetime period of ineligibility and disqualification of all competitive results from August 1, 1998 through the present, as the result of his anti-doping rule violations stemming from his involvement in the United States Postal Service (USPS) Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy (USPS Conspiracy).

Following the dismissal of Mr. Armstrong’s lawsuit on Monday, August 20, 2012, by the federal court in Austin, Texas, Mr. Armstrong had until midnight on Thursday, August 23, to contest the evidence against him in a full evidentiary hearing with neutral arbitrators as provided by U.S. law. However, when given the opportunity to challenge the evidence against him, and with full knowledge of the consequences, Mr. Armstrong chose not to contest the fact that he engaged in doping violations from at least August 1, 1998 and participated in a conspiracy to cover up his actions. As a result of Mr. Armstrong’s decision, USADA is required under the applicable rules, including the World Anti-Doping Code under which he is accountable, to disqualify his competitive results and suspend him from all future competition.

“Nobody wins when an athlete decides to cheat with dangerous performance enhancing drugs, but clean athletes at every level expect those of us here on their behalf, to pursue the truth to ensure the win-at-all-cost culture does not permanently overtake fair, honest competition” said USADA CEO, Travis T. Tygart. “Any time we have overwhelming proof of doping, our mandate is to initiate the case through the process and see it to conclusion as was done in this case.”

As is every athlete’s right, if Mr. Armstrong would have contested the USADA charges, all of the evidence would have been presented in an open legal proceeding for him to challenge. He chose not to do this knowing these sanctions would immediately be put into place.

The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses who agreed to testify and provide evidence about their first-hand experience and/or knowledge of the doping activity of those involved in the USPS Conspiracy as well as analytical data. As part of the investigation Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused.

On June 12, 2012, USADA issued a notice letter informing Mr. Armstrong and five other individuals, including the USPS team director, team trainer and three team doctors, of USADA’s intent to open proceedings against them. On June 28, 2012, following a review process set forth in the applicable rules, USADA notified Mr. Armstrong and the other five individuals that the independent review panel’s finding confirmed sufficient and in fact overwhelming evidence, and that USADA was charging them with rule violations.

Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong,or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.

The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are:

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.

These activities are defined as anti-doping rule violations under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing, the United States Olympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policies, USA Cycling rules and the International Cycling Union (UCI) Anti-Doping Rules (UCI ADR), all of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List.

In accordance with the Code, aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations and participation in a sophisticated doping scheme and conspiracy as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction. Accordingly, Mr. Armstrong has received a lifetime period of ineligibility for his numerous anti-doping rule violations, including his involvement in trafficking and administering doping products to others. A lifetime period of ineligibility as described in the Code prevents Mr. Armstrong from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory.

In addition to the lifetime ban, Mr. Armstrong will be disqualified from any and all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to August 1, 1998, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes.

As noted above, Mr. Armstrong challenged the arbitration process in federal court. In response, the court found that “the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association (AAA) are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process.” USADA’s rules provide that where an athlete or other person is sanctioned because they fail to contest USADA’s charges in arbitration, the sanction shall not be reopened or subject to appeal unless the athlete or other person can demonstrate that he did not receive actual or constructive notice of the opportunity to contest the sanction. Because Mr. Armstrong could have had a hearing before neutral arbitrators to contest USADA’s evidence and sanction and he voluntarily chose not to do so, USADA’s sanction is final.

In an effort to aid athletes, as well as all support team members such as parents and coaches, in understanding the rules applicable to them, USADA provides comprehensive instruction on its website on the testing process and prohibited substances, how to obtain permission to use a necessary medication, and the risks and dangers of taking supplements as well as performance-enhancing and recreational drugs. In addition, the agency manages a drug reference hotline, Drug Reference Online (http://www.GlobalDRO.com), conducts educational sessions with National Governing Bodies and their athletes, and proactively distributes a multitude of educational materials, such as the Prohibited List, easy-reference wallet cards, periodic newsletters, and protocol and policy reference documentation.

USADA is responsible for the testing and results management process for athletes in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement, and is equally dedicated to preserving the integrity of sport through research initiatives and educational programs.

Sounds like the USADA have solid, scientific dirt on him dating from 2009. If they're going to release the evidence at some point and that's in it then I imagine it's going to be Goodnight Vienna for Armstrong and his apologists.

[mr friendly guy]

Corticosteroids are performance enhancing? Sure if you have an injury, and you use it as an anti inflammatory. Thats like saying an athlete who takes an over counter medicine for colds and flu, because they have colds and flu is performance enhancing. Corticosteroids aren't anabolic, they are catabolic (ie they break down muscle). I suppose if you boost cortisol for a short period it might help, but again I will need some studies to show this is the case.

[aerius]

What's shitting me are all the people saying: "oh, who did it really hurt?"

Maybe all the riders who could have won/medalled? Who then missed out on that payday? And the sponsorships, endorsements, bookdeals etc that come afterwards?

I mean, there's clearly no harm done here.

Man, you'd literally have to go all the way down to the bottom 10% of the Tour de France cyclists before you found a clean rider. Yeah, pro cycling is that fucked up. How bad is it? Get your hands on a copy of From Lance to Landis which pretty much explains the doping culture in road cycling. Seriously, we have amateur racers at the provincial level who are doping and getting banned. He's not even a pro and nowhere close to riding at an elite level, and yet he's using PEDs. That's how pervasive doping is in road cycling, when I say it's a doping culture I'm not joking.

[weemadando]

I know that it's a case of "assume everyone is using", but he won a record number of titles and has god knows how many ill-earned deals because of it?

[Simon_Jester]

What's shitting me are all the people saying: "oh, who did it really hurt?"

Maybe all the riders who could have won/medalled? Who then missed out on that payday? And the sponsorships, endorsements, bookdeals etc that come afterwards?

I mean, there's clearly no harm done here.

I agree that having cycling be drug-addled hurts everyone. That part I'm on board with. It's other factors that make me discontent with the way this is going.

Oh, and one more thing. Why Armstrong says it's "unconstitutional"? Does he really expect someone will add anti-doping agencies to the constitution, or is it some kind of buzzword 'anti-dope bad, me hate'?

I think he's using it as shorthand for "this violates the principles of justice, such as bans on double jeopardy and rules against hearsay evidence." It's simplistic, yeah.

Sounds like the USADA have solid, scientific dirt on him dating from 2009. If they're going to release the evidence at some point and that's in it then I imagine it's going to be Goodnight Vienna for Armstrong and his apologists.

I won't be surprised if he turns out to have done it all- disappointed but not surprised. I do object to the perceived nature of the process, but much depends on the exact nature of the testimony and evidence, and how much of it is of solid provenance.

[Zinegata]

Sounds like the USADA have solid, scientific dirt on him dating from 2009. If they're going to release the evidence at some point and that's in it then I imagine it's going to be Goodnight Vienna for Armstrong and his apologists.

Now that sounds saner; the question for me now is were they able to figure out how the previous tests emerged negative?

[mr friendly guy]

Now that sounds saner; the question for me now is were they able to figure out how the previous tests emerged negative?

From the article

Numerous witnesses provided evidence to USADA based on personal knowledge acquired, either through direct observation of doping activity by Armstrong,or through Armstrong’s admissions of doping to them that Armstrong used EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from before 1998 through 2005, and that he had previously used EPO, testosterone and hGH through 1996. Witnesses also provided evidence that Lance Armstrong gave to them, encouraged them to use and administered doping products or methods, including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone and cortisone during the period from 1999 through 2005. Additionally, scientific data showed Mr. Armstrong’s use of blood manipulation including EPO or blood transfusions during Mr. Armstrong’s comeback to cycling in the 2009 Tour de France.

Keep in mind I have very little interest in sports medicine, however some medical concepts should apply. Going on, not sure how he would cheat testosterone, aside from corruption, however..

EPO - he is alleged to have used it before a method was invented to detect it. Of which apparently its controversial how effective the detection method is. Considering EPO is just a synthesised version of a natural hormone which breaks down very quickly, its hard to detect it directly.

You could infer maybe based on the blood parameters when doing a standard full blood count / picture.

hGH - this one is tricky. Growth hormone can be measured, but it fluctuates during the day quite a bit. If a cheater measures high on GH, who is to say his high level is simply because of normal daily fluctuation?

To elaborate, people with acromegaly (excessive growth hormone production, eg Chinese basketballer Sun Ming Ming) aren't diagnosed by directly measuring growth hormone levels in isolation. In fact the diagnostic test is to give them glucose, then measure GH a few hours later (as glucose will suppress GH). So its not a simple matter of just giving a blood or urine test.

blood transfusions - there is no way of measuring directly this, if he uses his own blood. You could infer indirectly by looking at blood parameters. However these blood parameters are not a smoking gun. Which is why the opposing case relies on witnesses.

Edit - there are also limits to what is considered normal, so you can't just continue transfusing blood cells. Fun fact, if you transfuse too much, the viscosity of blood increases, and it becomes harder to pump. Not only is this harmful, its useless as a cheating method because it makes you perform worse. In any event, by experimentation it should be possible to figure out how many pints you need to transfuse to keep your blood parameters at the "non cheating" level, so they can avoid giving too much.

The problem would lie in how, they manage to transfuse blood on short notice. But the point is, in this case his accusers are accusing him of using a known cheating method, which is known to be undetectable directly. Its not like they are accusing him of using a never seen before cheating method which just happens to be undetectable by current tests.

[Broomstick]

Keep in mind I have very little interest in sports medicine, however some medical concepts should apply. Going on, not sure how he would cheat testosterone, aside from corruption, however..

As a post-testicular cancer survivor his remaining testes (I think he still has one of 'em) might be too damaged to produce sufficient natural testosterone, in which case supplementation would be needed to maintain his health. In which case, presumably, he'd be permitted to take sufficient to bring that hormone level up into the normal male range. This might allow him to boost the supplement level considerably between tests, and if he timed it correctly it could then drop down for the test, and if some of it was detected as synthetic, well, he's got a legitimate medical need for (small) levels of supplementation.

Pure speculation on my part, I have no access to factual medical information for Mr. Armstrong or the nuances of what medications are and are not permitted for pro cyclists even with medical need, it's just a guess on my part on how it might have been possible for him to cheat.

EPO - he is alleged to have used it before a method was invented to detect it. Of which apparently its controversial how effective the detection method is. Considering EPO is just a synthesised version of a natural hormone which breaks down very quickly, its hard to detect it directly.

Epo has been, for a couple decades, made via genetically engineered bacteria that make a version identical to the human sort. It was one of the earliest successes of genetic engineering, utilizing the transfer of human genes into something else. It's indistinguishable from what the human body produces, which complicates cheating detection.

[weemadando]

Testosterone replacement therapy is easily exploited too. Testosterone to Epitestosterone ratios are typically 1:1.

WADA allows up to 4:1, used to be 6:1 IIRC.

Therefore people can easily over use synthetic testosterone as part of TRT if they have an exemption (as Armstrong would hvae) and it still be "legal".

[aerius]

Man, if you think TRT exemptions are getting silly in the UFC, wait'll you see what they do in pro cycling. TRT is considered to be a basic part of every "medical program" that the cycling teams have. They all cycle it at some point or another, then load up with the rest of the drug cocktails. The doping game is so far ahead of the regulators that it's not even funny, it's basically at the point where you only get caught if you're ratted out or you manage to piss off enough people that they rat you out. Otherwise the riders have to get really unlucky to get nailed.

[Darth Yan]

the main problem i have is that even if his titles are taken away, then the guy who gets them will also have been doping and doing drugs. Also, if anything Lance's relationship with the postoffice bettered it so the whole "he defrauded them" is actually not only wrong but the exact opposite is true. Finally, imagine if you discredit the big that everyone loves. It's entirely possible that some idiot thinks he can make a name for himself.

[Phantasee]

I feel like someone put the entire thread into Word and hit the autosummarize button.

[Darth Yan]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... medium=RSS

So in essence the prosecutors are dropping the charges and Lance keeps the medals. Seems that in the end there really was no substance afterall. I just hope this doesn't happen again in 2 years.

[Thanas]

That actually does not say what you think it does.

[Terralthra]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... medium=RSS

So in essence the prosecutors are dropping the charges and Lance keeps the medals. Seems that in the end there really was no substance afterall. I just hope this doesn't happen again in 2 years.

That article is from February, and concerns the US Attorney, not the USADA.

[Darth Yan]

yeah that was careless of me. Still I think that it's a witch hunt since everyone else has done it and they went past their own statues. Give it a rest. He won deal with it.