mr friendly guy wrote:
Mate, at least come out and say you didn't read the USADA report and just got info from pro Armstrong propaganda. commentators.
I had it on my hard drive and was already working through it. It took a while to finish, between falling asleep and rereading skimmed portions. Never having read doping prosecutions before, or prosecution documents generally, I'm still not sure what to expect of one.
Its a very convincing narrative, like its supposed to be, but reads less like a research document and more like one of those lurid little 'true-crime' books or news features - except a judge and jury have already signed off on the crime having happened. Or even a fiction except for the citations. There is no easy way to backcheck anything. Common sense suggests with so many people coming forward there must be some substance to the charges, the doping science matches what I've learned of it. There was always a strong probability Armstrong doped; no surprises, even that he was alleged to be a ringleader, since in proven criminal cases, the guys who break always say it was the other guy's fault.
Gosh, the guy sure looks guilty, but apart from tweaking emotional intensity up over what was almost a foregone conclusion, where's anything resembling a neutral third-party assessment of the prosecution's presentation?
From page 6 of the USADA report.
On August 24, 2012, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) announced it had imposed a sanction of lifetime ineligibility and disqualification of competitive results achieved
since August 1, 1998, on United States athlete Lance Armstrong. Mr. Armstrong’s sanction was announced at that time by USADA because Mr. Armstrong had notified USADA that he was
refusing to contest the evidence against him in a hearing before neutral arbitrators.
Armstrong had the chance to contest it before the neutral arbitrators you want to discuss about. He was only stripped when he refused to contest it? Whats next? Any athlete who knows they are guilty can refuse and hence the process gets stymied. We know thats bullshit. Its hard to justify the USADA is the judge and jury (as opposed to the prosecutor) when the case was to be referred to a neutral arbitrator.
My understanding is that there were concerns from Armstrong's camp over the full neutrality of the arbitration process. That wasn't explained in the report. Not that they had too, but if they want to play the even hand even though they're not, they might have mentioned that and explained why their arbitration process was sound over Armstrong's objections.
Page 17
On June 28, 2012, USADA issued its charging letter setting forth USADA’s recommended sanctions and specifying that pursuant to the USADA Protocol the Respondents had until July 9, 2012, in which to notify USADA whether Respondents wished to challenge USADA’s proposed sanction by requesting a hearing before a panel of neutral arbitrators.25 Mr. Armstrong subsequently sought and received an extension to July 13, 2012, of his time to request a hearing before neutral arbitrators. That deadline was again voluntarily extended by USADA after Mr. Armstrong filed his federal
lawsuit described below.
So by accounts Armstrong was initially willing but then changed his mind. All this disproves the concept of the USADA being judge, jury and executioner when it was clear this ONLY came about because Armstrong changed his mind and chose not to challenge.
Arbitration usually requires agreement between parties to enter arbitration voluntarily, in agreement and support of the process. Refusing arbitration isn't always an indicator of guilt. Its obviously possible Armstrong only wanted to short-circuit the process. Its also possible he eventually recognized and saw no reason to answer to a kangaroo court, guilty or no.
So, why no effort to validate the process with Armstrong in-absentia or determine what would be an acceptable arbitration process? Armstrong didn't plead no-contest. Armstrong rejected the process as unfair and invalid, and that needed to be addressed more thoroughly than it was. Isn't there a problem with the process in the first place if the USADA can almost be undone by the respondent simply ignoring them?
For Armstrong to make accusations of USADA unconstitutionality is not far-fetched; he has a right to
fair due process.
Would you like me to summarise this defense?
Founding Father wank regarding due process tick.
USADA is unfair with no explanation of why its unfair - except its harder for the athletes to win in the face of overwhelming evidence.
USADA officials are not democratically elected.
Therefore they are unaccountable. Seriously, this is a serious argument or a blatant ad hominem?
Repeats the same lines which anyone bothering to read the USADA report will know it addressed. But for completeness he repeats the line a) Armstrong was tested 500-600 times (disputed by USADA) b) He never tested positive (actually its not quite simple as that, as I listed above).
The USADA can investigate, but it can't demand of the UPI that its findings be ratified without third-party oversight while implying the UPI was covering for Armstrong. That's just bureaucratic point scoring, because had the report been acceptable, its UPI's duty to act on it anyway whether it make it look like they were answering to Tygert or not.
For the good of the sport, at least toss it to the CAS; then a somewhat less tainted and third party is validating the process. Unwelcome findings might still be challenged in court, but a well-run arbitration should stand up in court anyway. Due process is met, short of litigation, by fair arbitration.
The
way it played out, the UPI appears to have caved in, grudgingly accepting a lack of third-party oversight, while posturing it acted 'independently'. Tygert kind of backed off and praised them, although with the warning that more work needs to be done. Armstrong's backers appear to have ended it for him by offering to spare his
Livestrong Foundation if he steps down and shuts up.
Now, its not that UPI might not have needed some leaning on. However, a root problem hasn't been resolved.
One of the problems is that there isn't that third party. Where were the USADA and UPI during Armstrong's 7-year streak? And before that? Would a sound arbitration system have allowed honest athletes and officials to police the sport better themselves, instead of waiting for a key stakeholder like the USADA to decide to do it? What if the USADA was inclined to break the rules the other way, insisting there was no doping problem and presenting a convincing narrative?
Tygert and the USADA appear to have compromised the independence of the AAA, and is challenging that of the UPI, with an agency power grab. All to get Armstrong, for the good of clean sport... and to expand a bureacratic kingdom? This is a problem.
Maybe its just that over here we didn't get that type of reporting. We just got, Armstrong refuses to contest, here is the evidence. So maybe my view isn't coloured by how the USADA officials appears to have behaved. But even if they were dicks in real life, the evidence stands by itself. Plus they were prepared to go to a neutral arbiter so I don't know where this they behave like judge, jury comes from.
Armstrong made it pretty clear he felt an unfair non-neutral arbitration wasn't worth fighting.
Separation of powers is considered vital to accountability, and the USADA is already an investigative/enforcement and prosecuting body. Giving them influence over sport judicial and governance functions really screws the system as it had been developing for amateur athletes.
Since Armstrong was a professional athlete I am not sure why bringing up how amateurs do it matters.
The pros are using amateur sport bodies because the amateurs had the expertise. The CAS/AAA organizations were originally intended to catch out cheats in Olympic sports.
Everyone 'knows" Armstrong must have cheated and pro cycling carries the reputation of being that kind of sport. There isn't going to be a critical mass of hatred towards Armstrong blinding people and backing Tygerts play at being some sort of clean sport crusader czar. Armstrong didn't besmirch the Olympics, and his life outside sport has been more or less exemplary. He's that charitable guy who happens to be from a shady sport that's come back to bite him.
1. What has the Olympics got to do with the Tour de Farce?
2. What has Armstrong's behaviour outside of his sport got to do with the fact that he cheated? In fact, accusations of witness intimidation cast doubt on his life outside of sport being "exemplary" but thats neither here nor there in terms of whether he cheated or not.
1. Nothing except the juxtaposition. A higher standard of conduct is placed on an Olympic sport compared to a pro sport in the public consciousness. Although pros now compete in the Olympics, that wasn't always the case. Olympians are "really, really not supposed to cheat" as opposed to "not supposed to cheat". So, acting against Armstrong isn't on the same plane as acting against Marion Jones. Trying to clean up pro cycling is kind of a waste of public sport funding resources needed for amateur sport.
2. When I mean outside the sport, I mean, Armstrong is not known for acting badly outside the old 'hood. Vick held dogfights; Armstrong founded a charitable foundation. However Armstrong gained his success, he did not misspend it nearly as badly as he is said to have earned it.
Its more noticeable that the USADA does not know its place; judge, jury, and executioner is not its mandate and its acting like an unaccountable government regulatory body trying to make people hear it roar by making an example of Armstrong. Most law-abiding persons instinctively fear and reject that kind of rogue mentality from officialdom, the way officialdom squirms at vigilantism.
As mentioned, they were prepared to go to a neutral arbitrator, and it was Armstrong who refused. Not only is your claim untrue, its a blatant appeal to motive fallacy. Sheesh.
That Armstrong felt USADA arbitration was
one-sided. I'm not aware that he was even offered the CAS, input into the process, input into the people, all of which are important to the arbitration process. The CAS is at least physically located away from the USADA's home turf. Sure, Armstrong is and American, but he clearly felt he wasn't going to get a fair hearing at home.
I was a bit dubious myself, but then I actually bothered to look at the evidence the USADA presented, rather than go, USADA IS TEH EVEL. If this is the level of defense Armstrong's supporters can muster, no wonder he folded.
My "defense" of Armstrong is more focused on his getting fair due process, the right of even the apparently guilty for benefit of all. The USADA report emphasized, for example, how much of a sacrifice it was for witnesses to come forward; well, that cuts both ways. Was it a greater sacrifice to ignore the USADA or go along with a six-month suspension deal? Was USADA attention making it difficult for them too?
The problem with accepting the prosecutions version only, unchallenged, is that is it just the prosecution's version of events. If Armstrong rejected USADA arbitration as biased, why not determine what standard of arbitration he would accept instead of rushing to ratify the report? Sure, he said he gave up. Most people in the real world might also even if innocent; the titles always carried a taint and his brand was pretty much expired anyway as he was retired and no longer making the podium.
Its too bad Armstrong is 'doable', since if he loses to the USADA, a precedent may be set against athletes' rights to fair due process.
If you mean fair process which means an athlete should be able to argue all but a conspiracy theory / incompetence of the drug laboratories where scientific findings are rejected? In case you wonder where I got that from, its from your own linked article where he rejects the validity of drug testing, on the grounds that a positive test makes an athlete guilty until proven innocent.
"Scientific" isn't a magic word that conjures foolproof competence from the practitioner.
False positives are rare but can escape lab procedures. It can't always be excluded from consideration.
A fair process where an athlete can have reliably neutral third party oversight for dispute resolution. Suppose its not drug testing but unfair treatment, say in a selection process or other more common dispute resolution? Neither prosecution or defense should be able to force the hand of a verdict except by the merits of their arguments and evidence. Athletes agree to be bound by USADA protocol which includes its arbitration process, but that's a step removed from the spirit of the arbitration when they might never have to use it and only find out its a kangaroo court the hard way.
The 'Reasoned Report' was not subjected to any competent cross-examination or review. Its just assumed to be a slam-dunk from a trusted source so why bother? Sure, everyone and his dog can read it and judge for themselves, but none of us have standing as Armstrong's formal jurists with a jurists resources. The process is incomplete and UPI did as poor a job looking out for the individual rights of a cyclist as it did policing doping.
Hardly a renewal of the sport for the better if the structural flaws are still there.
