The Legacy of Lance Armstrong?

[Glenn E.]

He probably won't respond much to George's affidavit except to say George was coerced into admitting his own PED use and was granted a lighter sentence if he cooperated.

And that, I believe, is true of just about every one of the people who testified. George was allowed to compete in this year's TdF, for cryin' out loud. Coerced - or bribed - testimony just isn't valid.

Again just for the record, I'm not saying that Lance didn't dope or use PEDs. What I'm saying is that their "evidence," such as it is, is tainted to the point that it's no longer credible and that they're violating their own rules in order to pursue this case. They're so desperate to pursue Lance that they're allowing others who have allegedly admitted to using PEDs to continue competing. If that's not a witch hunt, I don't know what is.

Tygart needs to be fired. The USADA needs to be audited for ethics and the house cleaned out.

[Rob C.]

He probably won't respond much to George's affidavit except to say George was coerced into admitting his own PED use and was granted a lighter sentence if he cooperated.

And that, I believe, is true of just about every one of the people who testified. George was allowed to compete in this year's TdF, for cryin' out loud. Coerced - or bribed - testimony just isn't valid.

Again just for the record, I'm not saying that Lance didn't dope or use PEDs. What I'm saying is that their "evidence," such as it is, is tainted to the point that it's no longer credible and that they're violating their own rules in order to pursue this case. They're so desperate to pursue Lance that they're allowing others who have allegedly admitted to using PEDs to continue competing. If that's not a witch hunt, I don't know what is.

Tygart needs to be fired. The USADA needs to be audited for ethics and the house cleaned out.

Interesting that this was your key takeaway from all of this....!

Or are you just stirring the pot?!

Incidentally, why use the word "allegedly" when referring to the other riders' admissions? Their sworn affidavits are there to see. Most of them have made personal statements through their websites etc..

[Glenn E.]

Incidentally, why use the word "allegedly" when referring to the other riders' admissions? Their sworn affidavits are there to see. Most of them have made personal statements through their websites etc.

I haven't read all of the affidavits and websites, so I'm just going on what I've heard they said. Thus, allegedly.

But to further stir the pot... I'm not sure I 100% believe those sworn affidavits. Lance had the wherewithal and money to fight the USADA. Most of the rest of these guys did not. So when the USADA comes to them and says, "look, we're going to sanction you for using PEDs, but if you admit to it and also testify against Lance, we'll go really easy on you," what do you think they're going to do?

I know what I'd probably do. I'd probably sign their damn affidavit, true or not, especially if I was nearing the end of my career anyway.

Again, I'm not saying Lance is innocent. Just that this entire case stinks to high heaven.

[Andy Velebil]

Glenn,

You do realize most of these riders gave SWORN testimony to a Federal Grand Jury here in Los Angeles?

If you followed and read about this in-depth this whole thing started several years ago with these riders being approached for information. I think this statement from Levi Leipheimer sums it up best as to why now he and others came forward..

"I could have come forward sooner. But would that have accomplished anything—other than to end my career? One rider coming forward and telling his story in the face of cycling's code of silence would not have fixed a problem that was institutional," Leipheimer wrote.

As we've seen with a couple others riders who've been brave enough to say "this is what went on", they were shunned, called liars, and everything between. So would you really expect any of these guys to come out on their own after seeing what others went through? Not in a million years. However, on the large scale that the Fed's started and USADA has now finished there is safety and power in numbers.

It should be noted that these guys have all received current bans and the loss of previous wins similar to Lance Armstrong. In at least one case so far reported, the rider also has to pay back prize money won for those old races if he wants to be allowed to keep racing next year. Reportedly a significant sum.

[Glenn E.]

It should be noted that these guys have all received current bans and the loss of previous wins similar to Lance Armstrong.

No, they haven't. None of them have been banned for life that I know of. George raced in the TdF this year, either tying or setting the record for the most TdFs raced (I can't remember which). Levi also raced in the TdF this year and was positioned as one of the best hopes for an American win.

They were not by any stretch of the imagination treated the same as Lance. Not even close.

Lance is being used as a scapegoat. He was simply the best at doing what everyone was doing. Cycling seems to think that it can make history go away by persecuting Lance, but it can't. The sport needs to consign the past to the past and move forward, not continue to dredge up old violations that everyone already accepts happened (whether they're public or not). That entire era is and always will be a black spot in cycling's history, and the current shenanigans that USADA is pulling don't help.

Let's put it this way - do you think it would help baseball if the Cardinals and Giants were forced to retroactively forfeit every game that McGuire and Bonds played in while on steroids?

[Moses Botbol]

The sport needs to consign the past to the past and move forward, not continue to dredge up old violations that everyone already accepts happened (whether they're public or not). That entire era is and always will be a black spot in cycling's history, and the current shenanigans that USADA is pulling don't help.

Well, they are moving forward, but the dust hasn't settled yet. In a year or two, they will be an old era of cycling. Most of the stars will be retired and hopefully cyclists won't be so apt to cheat again. I am sure they will; as long as their is competition there will be cheats. There's a lot at stake and the amount of dedication pro cycling takes is almost unrivaled by any other professional team sport. Imagine training 400 miles a week? Heck, I don't like driving 400 miles in a week!

The tests need to be better, the testers have to be beyond reproach, and the atmosphere has to change that they compete in. Armstrong was a marketing machine and it was quite easy for the authorities controlling pro cycling to turn their heads with their hands out.

I'd rather lift the helmet ban than go through the witch hunts cycling has become. Bad press is better than no press I suppose?

[Rob C.]

It should be noted that these guys have all received current bans and the loss of previous wins similar to Lance Armstrong.

No, they haven't. None of them have been banned for life that I know of. George raced in the TdF this year, either tying or setting the record for the most TdFs raced (I can't remember which). Levi also raced in the TdF this year and was positioned as one of the best hopes for an American win.

They were not by any stretch of the imagination treated the same as Lance. Not even close.

Two other life bans have been given as a result of this investigation. Three further life bans may well be given (depending on result of arbitration).

Lance, had he taken the opportunity to confess and come clean, could well have benefitted from the same treatment as the other 11 riders. But he didn't.

As an aside, i don't think it is unreasonable that USADA took their time getting their ducks in a row on this investigation - the scale was unprecedented and for them to have picked it up earlier this year and concluded it in time to prevent all the active cyclists from competing in TdF would have been difficult. Tellingly, however, none of those involved lined up for USA at the Olympics.

But in fairness to LA, whilst he was no doubt a thoroughly unpleasant and difficult individual personally (as many highly driven and successful people are), i don't actually think he was the super-villain he's made out to be. This type of doping was an intrinsic part of cycling well before he came along - particularly from the Indurain era where it genuinely became impossible for clean riders to compete. If LA hadn't made his comeback, the sport wouldn't have magically cleaned itself up after Festina 98 - just look who was still involved (Ulrich, Julich, Pantani, Riis etc.!). It would have been the same story.

Plus its not as if he was a kiddy-fiddler, like one of my other childhood heroes has this week (allegedly!) turned out to be!!

[Glenn E.]

As an aside, i don't think it is unreasonable that USADA took their time getting their ducks in a row on this investigation - the scale was unprecedented and for them to have picked it up earlier this year and concluded it in time to prevent all the active cyclists from competing in TdF would have been difficult.

But it wouldn't have had to be concluded, right? Riders who are under investigation cannot participate. If Levi and George both admitted PED use during their testimonies, why were they still allowed to race?

In fairness to LA, whilst he was no doubt a thoroughly unpleasant and difficult individual personally (as many highly driven and successful people are), i don't actually think he was the super-villain he's made out to be. This type of doping was an intrinsic part of cycling well before he came along - particularly from the Indurain era where it genuinely became impossible for clean riders to compete. If LA hadn't made his comeback, the sport wouldn't have magically cleaned itself up after Festina 98 - just look who was still involved (Ulrich, Julich, Riis etc.!). It would have been the same story. Plus its not as if he was a kiddy fiddler, like other of my childhood heroes have turned out to be!!

I guess this is really what I'm getting at. Why pick on Lance? Just because he's the most famous and most successful rider in the history of the TdF?

There's a whole host of other riders out there who are going to continue to be revered despite being just as dirty. Indurain is a perfect example. Is it just because Lance is an American in a traditionally European sport?

[Rob C.]

USADA is, naturally, going to be concerned principally with US riders and the coaches/doctors involved with US riders, rather than European riders.

And on the contrary, UCI - the institution that you'd expect to be gunning for LA if your theory was correct - does not appear to come out of this whole affair at all well and now faces some uncomfortable questions in terms of their involvement....

But Lance - because of his profile and dominance of one of the marquee events in the sport - is obviously going to draw the most attention. That plus the fact that just about all of the other big name European (and US) riders from that era have already been sanctioned - Ulrich, Riis, Pantani etc. etc..

As for Indurain - he keeps a low profile nowadays, but i wouldn't be surprised if more critical attention comes his way (though so much time has passed that i would be surprised if its more than the odd journalist article/expose).

[Andy Velebil]

USADA is, naturally, going to be concerned principally with US riders and the coaches/doctors involved with US riders, rather than European riders.

And on the contrary, UCI - the institution that you'd expect to be gunning for LA if your theory was correct - does not appear to come out of this whole affair at all well and now faces some uncomfortable questions in terms of their involvement....

But Lance - because of his profile and dominance of one of the marquee events in the sport - is obviously going to draw the most attention. That plus the fact that just about all of the other big name European (and US) riders from that era have already been sanctioned - Ulrich, Riis, Pantani etc. etc..

As for Indurain - he keeps a low profile nowadays, but i wouldn't be surprised if more critical attention comes his way (though so much time has passed that i would be surprised if its more than the odd journalist article/expose).

+1

And also keep in mind that Lance was also part owner of US Postal and now Radio Shack. Something few people know as it was something he always kept very quiet, though not so much with the shack but more so with Postal. So as a part owner who was using, trafficking, indimidating witnesses, etc he became a main focus. And here is something I didn't know until reading the report (I'll copy this part of the report).

USADA started their investigation about the same time, and initially without knowledge, of the Fed's investigation. USADA backed off theirs, though not stopping, until the Fed's dropped their case. I also didn't know it started out of a Southern California riders positive dope test (though I was aware of his positive and issues around that). Here's some info from the report.

III. BACKGROUND
A. Commencement of USADA’s Broad Investigation of Doping in Cycling
In November 2008 USADA proceeded to a hearing in a non-analytical case involving
U.S. cyclist Kayle Leogrande. Mr. Leogrande received a two year period of ineligibility for the
use of erythropoietin (EPO). Subsequently, in January of 2009, USADA received information
from a variety of sources with information about individuals who may have supplied Mr.
Leogrande and other cyclists with performance enhancing drugs. Thereafter, USADA
commenced an investigation into drug use and distribution within the Southern California
cycling scene and began making inquiries and following up on various leads related to this issue.
USADA came to understand that Floyd Landis might have information useful to this
effort. However, before USADA communicated with Mr. Landis on this topic, Paul Scott, an
individual residing in Southern California, provided information to USADA Science Director Dr.
Daniel Eichner confirming that Mr. Landis had information relevant to USADA’s investigation
of doping in the Southern California cycling community and also providing information about
the involvement of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Landis in doping on the U.S. Postal Service Team.

[Derek T.]

Plus its not as if he was a kiddy-fiddler, like one of my other childhood heroes has this week (allegedly!) turned out to be!!

Now then, now then, now then! Stay on topic, please

[Andy Velebil]

Since this question came up earlier, I thought I'd put out there why the riders who gave testimony were only given a 6 month suspension (the normal first offense being a 2 year suspension). (bolding by me)

Each of the six (6) witnesses who were still active cyclists at the outset of
their cooperation with USADA has voluntarily accepted a sanction of six (6) months ineligibility
and loss of competitive results as a consequence of his own rule violations.739 As provided in the
rules, up to a three-quarters (3/4) reduction in the otherwise applicable period of ineligibility is
appropriate where a sanctioned athlete has provided “substantial assistance” to an anti-doping
organization.740 Accordingly, the sanctions accepted by each of the six (6) active cyclists are
appropriate and provided for in the rules. Acceptance of these sanctions, including loss of results
and a six month suspension, demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility that should be
considered favorably in assessing their testimony.

[Glenn E.]

What's 3/4 of a lifetime ban?

I guess that explains why Lance didn't cooperate. Everyone else gets a perfectly timed slap on the wrist that doesn't hinder their TdF participation, while Lance gets a lifetime ban which gives him no reason to cooperate. Not that he would have, Lance being Lance, but there wouldn't have been any point even if he'd wanted to.

Still looks like a witch hunt to me, with Lance being the scapegoat for the entire sport's crimes. EVERYONE at the top was dirty during that period. They might as well just blank the record books from Indurain through, oh, let's say 2010. All wins are void, the riders presumed to have been doping in some way.

[Andy Velebil]

What's 3/4 of a lifetime ban?

I guess that explains why Lance didn't cooperate. Everyone else gets a perfectly timed slap on the wrist that doesn't hinder their TdF participation, while Lance gets a lifetime ban which gives him no reason to cooperate. Not that he would have, Lance being Lance, but there wouldn't have been any point even if he'd wanted to.

Still looks like a witch hunt to me, with Lance being the scapegoat for the entire sport's crimes. EVERYONE at the top was dirty during that period. They might as well just blank the record books from Indurain through, oh, let's say 2010. All wins are void, the riders presumed to have been doping in some way.

The lifetime ban for Lance was a result of not only using dope (only a 2 year first offense violation), but trafficking in it (as he provided it to other riders), and as a co-owner of teams to which he was on and also rode for and provided PED's to his riders as well as requiring those riders to use them or face being kicked off the team. The sanctions for those are far greater (lifetime ban) than simple use.

Here's something I didn't know until just the other day when speaking to a federal investigator with first hand knowledge of the initial stages of the investigation. The original FDA inquiry had nothing to do with US Postal Cycling Team or Lance. It originally started as inquiry into the pharmaceutical companies and how so much PED's were getting into the hands of athletes. During the very early stages of that investigation the information regarding Postal and Lance and the massive PED's program they were running shifted the investigation. So for the FDA he was not their initial target, but became so once they started uncovering evidence that has since been made public.

[Glenn E.]

More fuel for the fire... this starts to get at my problem with the whole case.

http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/ ... l?spref=tw

[Rob C.]

More fuel for the fire... this starts to get at my problem with the whole case.

http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/ ... l?spref=tw

Really? Which aspect of the argument?

Worth remembering that Lance's multi-million dollar legal team could not convince a federal judge that USADA was outside its jurisdiction or that its arbitration process was unfair....

[Glenn E.]

The federal judge essentially said, "since this isn't a criminal proceeding it wouldn't be right for me to interrupt until the process is played out. Lance still has options within the process as it stands. But from what I've seen, the process stinks."

[Glenn E.]

Two more "in other news, rain is wet" announcements today. Lance stepping down as chairman of the Livestrong foundation, and Nike severing its ties with Lance. Given public perception, both moves make perfect sense as both positions were essentially based on Lance's celebrity.

[Roy Hersh]

What next? Will we find out that Roger Clemens used performance enhancing substances too?

[Andy Velebil]

Two more "in other news, rain is wet" announcements today. Lance stepping down as chairman of the Livestrong foundation, and Nike severing its ties with Lance. Given public perception, both moves make perfect sense as both positions were essentially based on Lance's celebrity.

Giro, Trek, and the beer folks have also dropped him.

Some companies have said they will keep supporting Livestrong, but I don't see that happening for much longer in the future. I read an interesting article on how major companies will stand by for some time then quietly stop supporting a given person/company/cause once the dust has started to settle and it won't bring any further attention to their company.