Armstrong’s punishment has changed nothing for cycling
Roar Guru By sixo_clock, 28 Oct 2012 sixo_clock is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- cheating, Cycling, doping, drugs, Giro d'Italia, Lance Armstrong, Tour de France
Lance Armstrong has both energised and tarnished US Cycling - can it continue to grow? (AP Photo/Franck Prevel, File)
Related coverage
The vilification of Lance Armstrong continues.
What have the authorities proven by stripping Armstrong of his titles? We all knew or suspected that cyclists were doping. We already watched Le Tour and the Giro with suspicion.
Doping has been defended in the past. Some people have even blamed the fans for wanting a better, faster spectacle.
And now we have someone upon whom to pin all of the blame. It was Armstrong, the evil American, who single-handedly thwarted the pure motives and saintly innocence of a pristine world, forever tarnishing the European love of competitive cycling.
Please. What puerile and unmitigated rubbish. Lance is no more than a scapegoat.
Those seven Tour de France titles, and many others, should be marked with an asterisk. History should place the blame on tournament organisers, whose blinkered determination to run successful international events created the environment for illegal practices.
The principles of any company, club, team or organisation set the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. Despite what is written on the notice boards, it is those in charge who establish the norms.
Will we see pure justice here? Of course not.
Will next year’s racing be clean? Of course not.
Should all the governing bodies of these events be disbanded and others be installed? Realistically, that is the only way to deal with this problem.
Should teams have their own medical staff? Probably not.
Should possession of any medical equipment (apart from bandaids) be cause for suspicion? Sounds like a start.
Should any team involved with illegal behaviour be banned? Absolutely.
Will any meaningful thing happen to change cycling’s image to one of clean and natural competition?
Of course not. There are too many dollars, too many egos and too many careers involved.
The cycling apparatus knows it can rely on the mug punters to rock up next year. If they do, are those fans condoning the behaviour of a rider who does what he feels he must in order to win?
Only the high and mighty with their politically correct banners and paper shields will have won. It is a shabby, shallow, hollow, spineless victory much akin to Blackadder’s clump of World War 1 sod.
- Explore:
- cheating, Cycling, doping, drugs, Giro d'Italia, Lance Armstrong, Tour de France
October 28th 2012 @ 2:43am
Steve said | October 28th 2012 @ 2:43am | Report comment
If the overall point of this article is that cycling needs to clean house from the very top down, and everyone involved in cheating should be taken to task, then I think most people would agree, but I’d have to look askance at some of the statements the author uses to make his point:
“What have the authorities proven by stripping Armstrong of his titles?”
I suppose they’ve proven that even the mightiest figure can be taken down eventually. They’ve also proved Armstrong a liar and a cheat. They’ve also proven that he was at the centre of a massive web of improper conduct, which leads us to your next point:
“And now we have someone upon whom to pin all of the blame. It was Armstrong, the evil American, who single-handedly thwarted the pure motives and saintly innocence of a pristine world, forever tarnishing the European love of competitive cycling.”
This is your own straw-man; nobody is saying that cycling was clean before Armstrong, nobody is saying cycling was clean apart from Armstrong. They are merely saying he was the most successful cheat, the most high profile cheat, and the most hypocritical cheat. Also, that while he is by no means the only cheat, he does deserve some sort of repercussion for his actions. Which, again, leads us to your next point:
“Lance is no more than a scapegoat.”
If you were arguing he’s been persecuted, you could probably make a fair go of it, but saying he is NOTHING more than a scapegoat, a blameless, uninvolved party forced to suffer for the sins of others is just untenable.
October 28th 2012 @ 7:46am
Bobo said | October 28th 2012 @ 7:46am | Report comment
What he said.
Moreover, I don’t get the bit where Armstrong is supposedly singled out. Armstrong is one of scores of riders who have been busted. Seven riders and five doctors/coaches have been or will be suspended through this USADA action alone. All of Armstrong’s rivals have been suspended – Virenque, Ullrich, Basso, Mayo, Zuelle – and Kloeden paid a fine to escape suspension.
Unlike those riders, Armstrong was one of the owners of the team. He called the shots, set the ground rules. The question is not why he was busted, but why it took so long.
October 30th 2012 @ 5:20am
Vashek said | October 30th 2012 @ 5:20am | Report comment
@Steve: “They’ve also proved Armstrong a liar and a cheat” — or, have they? Even as that statement sounds very categorical, it is not what happened. In order to achieve their goal of stripping him of those titles authorities broke their own WADA code, “First article 24.3 of the Code states that the Code shall be interpreted as an independent and autonomous text and not by reference to the existing law or statutes of the Code signatories or governments.” That refers to the issue of the statute of limitations where it is stated that “No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is
commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. The Code does not provide for any possibility for an anti-doping organization to take away from the athlete or other person the benefit of this clause”, (Decision of the UCI). In the view of that it looks like authorities did their own cheating to catch a cheater. Way to go? I don’t think so. Next, if we want to get to some better understanding of what happened we should examine what is being done in the name of “clean sports” to achieve that goal. The paradox is: justice can not be achieved with corrupt justice.
October 30th 2012 @ 2:14pm
sittingbison said | October 30th 2012 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
Suggest you do some further reading of the Code. Heres a hint: Conspiracy.
October 28th 2012 @ 7:20am
David said | October 28th 2012 @ 7:20am | Report comment
Steve,
I don’t know where your from, however heads of cycling in Australia have already publicly said, “these days are in the past already ” and the tour organizers have said something similar suggesting its all clean now and lance is a product of the past only.
The spin is that lance is the big bad guy, but now, phew, all over. I don’t, anymore, think lance is innocent , however there needs to be a lot more heads rolling with this judgement if lance is not simply a scapegoat in my opinion.
October 28th 2012 @ 12:18pm
Bobo said | October 28th 2012 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
A scapegoat is a sacrificial, innocent victim singled out for slaughter to absolve the sins of others.
Armstrong has neither been singled out, nor is he innocent. While it’s true that we must continue to press for change in cycling, including ridding it of the corrupt enablers who let this happen under their watch, the suggestion that Armstrong has been picked on is offensive. Much of the grievance of normal cycling fans is the level to which the UCI appeared to cover for him, particularly in light of the payments he made to Verbruggen and the UCI. To suggest that now, as he begins to enjoy his just deserts, that he is being somehow victimised – it borders on the fantastical.
October 28th 2012 @ 3:54pm
aussie sports lover said | October 28th 2012 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
actually, a scapegoat doesn’t have to be a victim. A scapegoat is just someone who bears the blame of others. An analogy: 100 people murder a person but five people are singled out and of these five, one person is particularly singled out for persecution.
October 29th 2012 @ 3:16am
amazonfan said | October 29th 2012 @ 3:16am | Report comment
Armstrong wasn’t persecuted, he was prosecuted. He was given an opportunity to defend himself, however he refused.
This idea that he was persecuted is not only false, but is offensive to people who have actually been persecuted.
October 29th 2012 @ 5:57am
aussie sports lover said | October 29th 2012 @ 5:57am | Report comment
Actually, Armstrong hasn’t been prosecuted (yet). He hasn’t been forced into court (yet).
Persecute refers more to systemetic harrassment by others in this context, without alluding to anything else.
October 29th 2012 @ 5:27pm
amazonfan said | October 29th 2012 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
Exept he hasn’t been subjected to harassment, systematic or otherwise, and to use the term persecute, is IMO absurd and offensive.
Putting aside the fact that persecute is an incredibly serious thing, and so using it in this context is not exactly appropiate, how has he been persecuted?
He’s lost his titles, but then he never legitimately won them in the first place. He’s lost sponsors as sponsors generally don’t like sporting cheats. He’s required to return prize money, which he stole. His reputation has been damaged which is what happens when you lie and cheat at sport. As far as I can see, he hasn’t been persecuted at all.
October 29th 2012 @ 6:07pm
aussie sports lover said | October 29th 2012 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
Firstly, I’m glad to see we can at least agree he hasn’t been prosecuted.
Second, I think if you take a look at the abusive daily comments left at his FB site and elsewhere in the media from everyday folks, many of which goes beyond criticism considered appropriate in a civilised society, some people would have different opinions on whether he has been persecuted. Various media outlets have referred to the “persecution” of Lance Armstrong. Just because you don’t feel LA has been persecuted doesn’t reflect the feelings of his family and friends. Infliction of suffering (mental, financial etc) by a mob for his own personal belief that he is not guilty of doping which differ from what many others believe could be called persecution.
But you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine. If you choose to be offended, it is your choice as it is certainly not my intention to offend anyone.
October 29th 2012 @ 7:09pm
amazonfan said | October 29th 2012 @ 7:09pm | Report comment
“Firstly, I’m glad to see we can at least agree he hasn’t been prosecuted.”
I wouldn’t say that. Simply because I choose not to respond to certain points does not mean that I agree. I don’t operate on dis/agreement by omission.
“Second, I think if you take a look at the abusive daily comments left at his FB site and elsewhere in the media from everyday folks, many of which goes beyond criticism considered appropriate in a civilised society, some people would have different opinions on whether he has been persecuted. Various media outlets have referred to the “persecution” of Lance Armstrong.”
FB can be horrible, however there is a difference between being persecuted and being abused by a section of the public.
As for the media outlets who have used the term, well, their job is to sell papers (and spots to advertisers).
”Just because you don’t feel LA has been persecuted doesn’t reflect the feelings of his family and friends.”
I’m sure they do feel that way, as would the family and friends of anybody who has lost so much. They aren’t exactly objective. I mean, how else are they going to feel?
“Infliction of suffering (mental, financial etc) by a mob for his own personal belief that he is not guilty of doping which differ from what many others believe could be called persecution.”
Armstrong’s personal belief is irrelevant. We aren’t debating the existence of God; rather, we are debating whether he doped. He could have defended himself, but by not doing so, he gave up his right to have his ‘personal belief’ that he didn’t dope be regarded as credible. He’s a sporting cheat, and his beliefs are actually more like (absurd) denials.
As for ‘infliction of suffering by a mob’, that is incredibly OTT.
There isn’t a mob. The only financial suffering relates to prize money/rewards he is required to return, and the loss of sponsorships. As for mental, well, as I said, FB and social media can be horrible.
“But you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine.”
I wasn’t aware that I said you weren’t entitled to your opinions.
“If you choose to be offended, it is your choice as it is certainly not my intention to offend anyone.”
Two comments:
1)I wasn’t so much offended by you as I was by this idea that Armstrong has been persecuted. I’ve read similar sentiments elsewhere, and I expect to read more in the future (as long as he still has admirers). So, no, I wasn’t offended by you specifically.
2)Of course it’s not your intention to offend anybody, however saying “If you choose to be offended, it is your choice” is completely ridiculous. Why bother saying anything (“If you” etc..) at all?
October 29th 2012 @ 7:26pm
sittingbison said | October 29th 2012 @ 7:26pm | Report comment
ASL, you have completely missed the point.
Armstrong has been found guilty of all instances of the charge letter, through a 200 page Reasoned Decision with corroborating 1000 pages of Evidence. This has been accepted by UCI and WADA. At all times USADA has followed to the letter their guidelines as agreed to by Armstrong (and co-authored by his own manager).
Armstrong attending arbitration is his own choice, not doing so is to accept the specifics of the charge letter. Which he knew full well. Its either that, or face perjury charges for continuing to lie under oath. There IS no prosecution, there never was – its an arbitration. Thats it. Full stop.
October 29th 2012 @ 7:47pm
aussie sports lover said | October 29th 2012 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Surely you cannot compare Lance Armstrong to such things, Amazonfan. That’s “OTT”.
In terms of debating whether he doped, I have stated in many previous posts that I think it is highly likely he doped, but at the same time I have also stated that the evidence gathered by USADA are based primarily on testimonies of witnesses, many with conflicts of interest or an axe to grind and that Armstrong has a chance in a court of law where higher standards to convict are required.
I think it’s misleading to say he has given up his rights – he hasn’t given up anything and he has not been convicted.
We will have to agree to disagree on whether there is a mob.
Well, I think people can indeed choose how they want to respond. As you said, you were offended by the idea that Armstrong is persecuted. You then gave a highly inappropriate example of a monster that has performed acts hardly befitting whatever wrongdoing LA has committed, which basically justified whatever abuse LA received from “lynch-mob mentality of certain parts of society”.
By the way, you really do sound like a politician when you say “I don’t operate on dis/agreement by omission”. It’s really simple, you said he was prosecuted. I pointed out he wasn’t. You wanted to make a big deal out of prosecution versus persecution. So whilst we can agree to disagree on the use of persecution, I think the use of prosecution is black and white, and you know it. Or are you still saying he was prosecuted?
October 29th 2012 @ 7:50pm
aussie sports lover said | October 29th 2012 @ 7:50pm | Report comment
Sittingbison, I actually agree with you there has been NO prosecution. It’s amazonfan who stated Armstrong has been prosecuted.
October 29th 2012 @ 9:03pm
amazonfan said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:03pm | Report comment
“Surely you cannot compare Lance Armstrong to such things, Amazonfan. That’s “OTT”.”
If you’re referring to Meagher’s killer, I was referring to abuse on FB. Surely that was obvious.
“In terms of debating whether he doped, I have stated in many previous posts that I think it is highly likely he doped, but at the same time I have also stated that the evidence gathered by USADA are based primarily on testimonies of witnesses, many with conflicts of interest or an axe to grind and that Armstrong has a chance in a court of law where higher standards to convict are required.”
I don’t how to respond to this, except to say there is no ‘highly likely’. Armstrong doped, however I guess we’re all free to believe what we want to believe.
“I think it’s misleading to say he has given up his rights - he hasn’t given up anything and he has not been convicted.”
How is it misleading? He had an oppirtunity to defend himself, which he choose not to take. For all intents and purposes, he has given up his rights.
“Well, I think people can indeed choose how they want to respond. As you said, you were offended by the idea that Armstrong is persecuted. You then gave a highly inappropriate example of a monster that has performed acts hardly befitting whatever wrongdoing LA has committed, which basically justified whatever abuse LA received from “lynch-mob mentality of certain parts of society”. ”
Two comments:
1)Let me get this straight. It’s “highly inappropriate” for me to talk about Meagher’s killer, when discussing FB, and yet you bring up mobs and persecute? Right.
2)I never justified anything. Did you even read what I wrote? Incredible.
“By the way, you really do sound like a politician when you say “I don’t operate on dis/agreement by omission”. ”
I may sound like a politician (which one?) however I do not like being told by someone that I dis/ agree with them simply because I choose not to respond.
BTW, attempting to insult me is just plain juvenile.
“It’s really simple, you said he was prosecuted. I pointed out he wasn’t. You wanted to make a big deal out of prosecution versus persecution. So whilst we can agree to disagree on the use of persecution, I think the use of prosecution is black and white, and you know it.”
Do NOT tell me what I know.
The term prosecution can be used specifically or in a general sense. So, no, I don’t think that the use of prosecution is black and white. But you are entitled to your opinions, just as I am to mine.
Anyway, you’re wrong about one thing. I ‘wanted to make a big deal’ out of the term persecution. Prosecution is a side-issue for me.
“Or are you still saying he was prosecuted?”
Honestly, I couldn’t care less. Whether he was prosecuted or not has no bearing on whether he was persecuted, and that is the key issue for me.
October 29th 2012 @ 9:25pm
aussie sports lover said | October 29th 2012 @ 9:25pm | Report comment
Amazonfan, Yes I do think it is highly inappropriate of you to compare Lance Armstrong;s actions to a terrible and inhumane act committed on an innocent person. In case you didn’t notice the irony, the venom and hatred directed towards LA on the media and online is actually comparable to that received by the monster you have chosen to keep going on about. How is it juvenile questioning you further on “prosecution” when you were the one that actually wanted to highlight your incredible knowledge of the English language in the first place? So the use of prosecution can be used in the specific or general sense? no it can’t – prosecution is specifically used in a legal setting. Now that the penny has dropped (oh sorry didn’t mean to say that you know the penny has dropped), you can’t defend your statements.
Yes, that’s right, as you said, you want to make a big deal out of the word “persecution”, because your opinion is that LA is not deserving of being “persecuted”, and his “crimes” essentially excludes him from being persecuted. To be honest, I don’t know what the fuss is all about. But if you want to make a big deal of the usage of persecution, I’m going to make a big deal out of the usage or prosecution.
October 28th 2012 @ 7:42am
Rob said | October 28th 2012 @ 7:42am | Report comment
I’m with Steve on this one. Lance is a liar, a cheat and a hypocrite. The fact that he has raised money for cancer “awareness” does not take away from the fact that he is and always will be a terrible human being and one of the biggest bullies in the history of sport. It’s only finally being realised by the greater public.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
October 28th 2012 @ 7:51am
sheek said | October 28th 2012 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Yes, many of then people running UCI are still there that were around in the early 2000s.
It’s like a few other sports such as athletics, aquatics or weightlifting, to name just three, drug taking & exposure is an inconvenient truth.
It merely slows down the process temporarily of making a stack of money.
And isn’t that what life is all about – making money (please note heavy irony).
October 28th 2012 @ 2:42pm
Hansie said | October 28th 2012 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Armstrong isn’t a scapegoat; he’s a lying cheat who manipulated millions of fans.
October 28th 2012 @ 3:05pm
aussie sports lover said | October 28th 2012 @ 3:05pm | Report comment
With time, doping will eventually become endemic because (1) it’s a doping arms race and nobody trusts each other especially in highly competitive elite sports andwhen there’s fame and fortunate and (2)) gene doping is already here and and getting better and it’s difficult for any organisation to keep up with the technology. It’s a bit like the Prohibition Era when alcohol was banned – what’s the point when it was so ubiquitous? there will be a black market, and the chances are people will get away with it more often than not. The carrot will always be much larger than the stick, unfortunately.
The whole LA scandal is not new news, everyone has long suspected that cycling is endemic with dopers. But everyone is so indignant and take it so personally when this came out. The worst thing about this whole thing is his bullying behaviour, but not sure if its’s enough to call him a “terrible human being”.
October 28th 2012 @ 4:50pm
sixo_clock said | October 28th 2012 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Wow, some of you really dislike Lance! You didn’t hold back either. The article was about stripping him of his titles. All he has done is refuse to continue fighting the allegations. Yes he most likely cheated, is that new amongst high flyers? He told porkies, same again. Nothing that we haven’t seen time and time again.
Just for the record, he won those tours. He assembled the team, maintained their loyalty, looked after them so they could be there at the end, and then pedalled himself all the way to Paris. His major competition all did much the same things as he did including the cheating and lying and he beat them.
As I said above they should just highlight the ‘drug years’ as compromised results and leave it at that. If they can ever, with 100% accuracy, maintain that there are no drugs and no doping then they can take off the highlight.
October 29th 2012 @ 7:16pm
sittingbison said | October 29th 2012 @ 7:16pm | Report comment
Just for the record, the lying cheating corrupt doping abusive bullying fraudulent thief has won nothing since 1998. There are no allegations, there is 200 pages of Reasoned Decision corroborated with 1000 pages of evidence that the UCI and WADA have accepted. Amstrong is guilty of all instances of the charge letter. Get over it.
Its complete and utter BS to keep up these pathetic comments like “most likely cheated”. There is overwhelming evidence both analytical and non-analytical that he and Bruyneel oversaw and operated the most comprehensive team based systematic doping program ever devised. He bullied and forced his team to dope, and used USPS money to do it. He spat them out if they performed better than him, he cancelled their contracts if they refused to dope. He threatened them and their wives, he sued them to shut them up. Go and read Dave Zabriskies testimony to see how well Armstrong and Hog looked after him.
He lied under oath in sworn testimony, he has lied to everyone who bought and read his books, he has lied to millions of cancer sufferers by pretending its not about the bike, and cheated donators to his charity shield many of whom STILL think its about cancer RESEARCH. And I haven’t even mentioned the difference between dot com and dot org.
He looked the entire world in the eye and lied to them on podium in 2005 with a straight face without batting an eyelid :
“…to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles….You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people…there are no secrets – this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it.”
October 30th 2012 @ 5:48am
Vashek said | October 30th 2012 @ 5:48am | Report comment
“There is overwhelming evidence…” — overwhelming if you’re too impressed with it. Reasoned Decision is not corroborated, because it was not cross-examined. You may blame for that Armstrong again since he walked away from arbitration, but the point is that it remains to be uncorroborated. Secondly, it is not corroborated because in the strict sense, witness testimony is mostly disparate events and localities, they talk about different timelines. There’s very few, if any, facts that are zeroed in by more than one witness. The whole report reads like a good fiction story but it is lacking in legal value and due process. Also, on that score what USADA did is atrocious. They broke their own statute of limitations of 8 years, which does not allow for any exceptions. Their interpretation of it referred to existing US laws, which is another violation under the autonomous WADA Code, “It is UCI’s view that USADA’s reference to national law is not appropriate.”
October 30th 2012 @ 7:30am
aussie sports lover said | October 30th 2012 @ 7:30am | Report comment
Agree with Vashek. Furthermore, difficult to know exactly when the event happen, because very few events are documented by actual dates and time (not surprising because most of them happen over 10 years ago). The only one that actually sawLA actually self injecting drug from what i can recall is Landis, who has problems with LA flying in his own plane (this is all from USADA report) – bit of jealousy maybe? Most of the other testimonies are along the lines of Lance was in a dark room, curtains were drawn or Lance said he took drugs ior Lance referred to “Gold oil” or Lance boasted he overturned a drug result. None of these events were recorded, none substantiated. USADA’s report is based on testimonies – overwhelming if the strength of evidence is the number of people who made the allegations but the quality of the evidence is questionable when you consider all the factors of witness reliability, conflict of interests, how long ago these events happen (try remembering specific events that happen 10 years ago). If these evidence were brought forward when LA was racing, it would have been much stronger. It might be overwhelming to the public, but a competent lawyer would likely pick each witness apart.
October 30th 2012 @ 2:12pm
sittingbison said | October 30th 2012 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
sorry you two, I respectfully disagree. All the evidence is corroborated against itself. USADA has done nothing wrong, you are making that up. Their processes have been scrutinised by the US Federal Court AND by the UCI. Everything is completely legit. The UCI observations regarding SOL are a last desperate attempt to deflect attention from their own shortcomings, if it was a real concern they would and should have appealed.
As to the veracity of the evidence, Armstrong has a long and documented history of using legal might to vanquish any and all aspersion. It is ludicrous to suggest a competent lawyer would likely pick it apart. The truth of the matter is Armstrong AND his legal team chose to not contest the evidence because there was no point in doing so, and he would face the very real likelihood of being charged with contempt and perjury.
Anyway, this is my last post on the subject of Armstrong. Everything that needs to be said has been. He has guilt been found guilty of orchestrating the most sophisticated systematic team based doping program in history, conspiracy, of administering and using PEDS, and drug dealing. Time for you to take the blinkers off.
October 30th 2012 @ 2:35pm
aussie sports lover said | October 30th 2012 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Just have to take you up on scrutiny by the US Federal court. The US District judge Sam Sparks
Sparks stated “the deficiency of USADA’s charging document is of serious constitutional concern.”
He then gave his reasons for why the US Federal court is not interfering in the matter.
“Indeed, but for two facts, the court might be inclined to find USADA’s charging letter was a violation of due process and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder. First, it would likely be of no practical effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later, only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA’s counsel represented to the court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA’s claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration.”
So I have to respectfully point out that the US Federal Court has not passed this off as “completely legit”, sittingbison.
October 30th 2012 @ 2:49pm
sittingbison said | October 30th 2012 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
lol ASL, look at what he is criticizing. A lack of detail in the charge letter, and not showing sufficient evidence. A single paragraph in what, 18 pages? He does not make any criticism of any of the procedural actions of USADA which is what Armstrong went to him for (they themselves made no mention of the charge letter being deficient lol).
The 200 page Reasoned Decision and 1000 pages of Evidence does in fact completely satisfy all of Sparks concerns, to whit Armstrong did not go straight back to him for a ruling.
ASL this has all been gone over at some length.
October 30th 2012 @ 2:57pm
aussie sports lover said | October 30th 2012 @ 2:57pm | Report comment
a few key words pop out, sittingbison.
“serious constitutional concern” and “violation of due process” is not criticism of USADA’s procedural actions?
Now that’s funny.
October 30th 2012 @ 11:35am
Aaron said | October 30th 2012 @ 11:35am | Report comment
a lot a spew towards lance here. nothing has changed for cycling because all his associates got off scot-free by comparison. hincapie, hamilton, julich, white, yates…. all just said: “i doped with lance.” and nothing more was said. are they psychopathic frauds and liars?
of course some of them were not as bad as lance ALLEGEDLY was. hitler wouldn’t have carried out the atrocities he did without his army.
October 31st 2012 @ 8:00pm
trotsky said | October 31st 2012 @ 8:00pm | Report comment
The debate of whether Armstrong has been judged harshly is interesting. Was he a corrupting influence or was he just doing what all the other serious contenders were doing ?
I suspect the latter, although he may have been more efficient than the others.
Most of the Australian reaction is critical of Armstrong, even when the news is not that surprising. We do not like having our romantic illusions exposed. WHat I find especially interesting is the HUGE double standard in Australia. Andrew Johns , a self confessed drug user is sent to Coventry for a few years and then inducted into the Hall of Fame. !!!
The leaguies than talk about there players being “role models for our kids. My head is reeling from these inconsistencies.
October 31st 2012 @ 11:59pm
dasilva said | October 31st 2012 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
Even if Armstrong was singled out amongst other racer
I don’t even think that is a bad thing
IF the goal is to stop or discourage doping
Well what’s the point of doping. To give you an advantage in winning a race.
If you target the winner and stripped their titles
well you are essentially saying that if you doped and you get caught, all the titles and victories will be erased. You are essentially removing the biggest incentive to dope.
winners of any sport should be targeted and they champions who do doped should be singled out because they are the ones who benefit most from doping
Does it mean other people get off the hook, of course not (really it’s not like Armstrong is the first cyclist to be stripped of his title or be caught doping or even the first athlete to be done in by USADA).
What’s the alternative, only target people who lose race (funny enough if you look at incompetition drug testing in the australian open/wimbledon/us open 2009, the only time a winner of a match gets drug tested is at the final, all the other in-competition testing was only done to the player who lost the match which is insane).
i’m sorry but the winner deserves to be the most scrutinised because they got the most to gain from doping. It’s not really that important if the 75 th best cyclist doped.
November 1st 2012 @ 9:38pm
AJc said | November 1st 2012 @ 9:38pm | Report comment
Any of you read the USADA document? I was shocked at how light it was, when you get into the affidavit material. It doesnt corroborate when you break down events by time by witness. Would love to cross reference this by the analytical tests, considering thier precision and opportunity to beat them. I think it paints Hamilton, Vaughters and Hincapie worse than Armstrong….looks like Landis peddled the stuff from 2004 on when he left USPS. While armstrong was on his death bed, and then had 18 months out of the game, they were cranking up the EPO big time. He wasnt even in Europe. Why hasnt Hincapie lost his clothing contract with BMC? How come Hamilton is making a serious wad of cash telling his story. Vuaghters has his own team now, yet he coerced and supplied young riders with EPO, and Armstrong wasnt even in the same coninent at the time!!! I wonder when Andreu is going tonadmit he was Armstrong mentor and got him into the PED’s, and hisnwifebhatesnhim for it!! Armstrong dobed. He was wrong, and should do the time. So should the others. Like all druggies, theyballbrat on each other, lie cheat,mhide behind half truths. Armstrong made some bad decisions in anger after being given a new lease of life (beating the big dopers Cofidis was a big line item after being dumped during chemo…motivation to win at all costs, anyone else understand the psychology of remission?). This is a political witch hunt designed to focus on one guy as a symbolic win on drugs in sport, but in the process has allowed a select few off scott free. White, Jullich etal , they didnt get an offer to talk, but have lost thier jobs, but they are the tip of the iceberg. These guys are a scapegoat. Personally I won’t participate in slipping the knife into Armstrong. I gladly watched him all those years, and always knew he doped to beat pant anne and Ullrich! Think there are a lot of hypocrites who gladly joined the gravy train, and now want to symbolically slip the knife. City of Adelaide, UCI. Would like this to be prosecuted in front of a real judge…. and fair time for the crime achieved for all, not this vindictive polititicised hogwash! Cycling won’t get my support until this happens.