Hmm, you know, it’s been like two days. I’m sure the revelations in the USADA report are a launching pad for many actions you mention above. I’m not clear as to why you feel it was possible to do it all simultaneously. Or maybe you don’t feel that way, but you certainly come across that way in your post.

I’m not too comfortable with the 6-month suspensions myself, but I also realize that to catch the big fish, you have to let a few small fish go. Hincapie is retired, so not much can be done against him, but I hope that UCI takes the USADA case to CAS and demands 2-year bans across the board. And this being Levi’s second time getting busted, he should get a lifetime ban.

I doubt that the U.S. attorney will reopen the case against Armstrong. First of all, the conduct he’s accused of is not illegal in the U.S. What the investigation was focused on was whether US Postal (read: government) money was used to buy illicit substances. That could be charged as fraud, etc. With two recent botched prosecutions of athletes, I’m not sure the government is going to go after Armstrong again, but if his image drops further, perhaps once the elections pass the district attorney will give it another go. It seems Bruyneel is on the hook in Belgium. Hope they put that bastard away for a bit.

I think the fact that teams actually HAVE to field racers in that race is deplorable. The air quality is horrible, and the fact that skies were blue was a lucky coincidence. I’m all for spreading cycling to countries where it’s not yet very popular (like Qatar), but not at the expense of riders’ health. I guess the easiest way to get out of racing in Tour of Beijing is to have Shimano be a title sponsor. Smog is serious business and given the respiratory rates of cyclists during competition, even short-term exposure could lead to long-term consequences.

I think we can resolve our disagreement if you can point me to a credible source who is of the opinion that the investigation was dropped for lack of evidence. I am not aware of one, but if you can provide one, I’d be forever grateful for the insight.

Here are some facts that are just that, facts, without any opinion:

1. The day the investigation was closed (Feb. 3), a $100K donation was made by the Livestrong Foundation to Planned Parenthood, an organization near and dear to President Obama’s heart and which was under threat of being defunded by the Susan G. Komen Foundation (the foundation later reversed its decision).

2. USADA’s investigation of LA and others was independent and concurrent to that of the U.S. attorney’s office.

These things should at least make you think a bit more skeptically about what you’re hearing out there.

“‘because in a real court those words of others would not stand. That is why the federal investigation was dropped last Feb.” – Absolutely and unequivocally false. That is not at all the reason the investigation was dropped. This was heavily discussed in a thread on another article. If you can point to one piece of press stating the U.S. gov’s reason for stopping the investigation, I’ll eat my words.

“USADA having lesser proof threshold took over” – False again. USADA did not take over. USADA investigation was ongoing concurrently with that of the federal government. Charges pressed by the government had nothing to do with enforcement of USADA’s doping rules. However, both investigations relied on much of the same evidence. Which is why Tygart was permitted to sit in on the grand jury testimony.

They issued a verdict because they had no other alternative. Lance did not want to go to arbitration, so this was a judgment by default, if you will. The same would have happened in a court of law where the defendant chooses not to fight the suit. The only way for them to prove a conspiracy would be before the panel of arbitrators at a hearing, which, as I’ve said above, Lance refused to have. There is no threshold burden of proof needed to break through the statute of limitations. All of that is resolved in a single proceeding. Your “they make their own rules” sounds like it came from Lance’s PR. They don’t make their own rules, they use the rules of the AAA, which Lance is well aware of and familiar with post his SCA arbitration. Moreover, given that Lance had a USAC license, he knew he was bound to arbitrate.

Are you proposing a conspiracy by USADA against the UCI? I’m not sure where you’re going with that last paragraph, but it seems a bit “out there.” If you know what I mean.

I guess we’ve reached our limit on nested replies.

The charges go back 14 years because under current rules and precedent, if the violation charged is an ongoing conspiracy, the statute of limitations is tolled. Your argument is essentially because LA managed to avoid having a positive test (not counting the two he covered up) for this many years he didn’t dope. I don’t understand why you choose to ignore volumes of evidence from every side stating how easy it was to beat the tests; how riders would pass hundreds of them (some without getting caught). Once JB goes through his arbitration hearing, I feel much more will come to light that we even know right now.

I would have agreed with you if it was Lance alone, but right now, there are several fingers pointing a the UCI as well, and given the leadership hasn’t changed much, this is very relevant and current, and until we find out the extent to which UCI was complacent with doping, I don’t think we can move forward. This is now larger than Lance.

It’s not all about digging deeper in the past, it’s about fixing the present. If in fact this goes deeper than Armstrong and all the way up the chain to the UCI, then those who are currently heading the UCI need to be removed from the sport for it to continue on a new path. Otherwise, you’re just putting the same people in charge who let (yes, let) the sport become corrupt with drugs (and not only).

“It is not a confirmation of anything, unless you use the upside-down logic that personal testimony is more valid than hundreds of tests.” In law, testimony has two aspects, volume and weight. In this instance, the volume of testimony is rather large: Hamilton, Landis, Vaughters, Vande Velde, Zabrisky, Hincapie, Andreu (Frankie and Betsy), etc. Then you have to look at the weight of the evidence. If all of these people testify to exactly the same thing with regard to Armstrong and doping, how many of such stories from his former teammates do you need before it becomes weighty enough to be believed. As far as positive tests, Armstrong failed two. But all you have to do is think of other cyclists who have been caught only once after hundreds of tests. They were caught, but they also beat hundreds of tests before being caught. In a system where those being tested are years ahead in technology, this isn’t that hard. In fact, those doing the testing weren’t able to figure out how cyclists were beating many of the tests until Landis’ interview and confession.

“What is really going on, and largely untold, is that personal “truth telling” is really attempt to hurt the other guy.” – Now I’m going to ask you to provide evidence of intent to hurt by those giving testimony. Your speculation doesn’t equal proof, just so we’re clear.

William, nothing has been proved in a court of law because Armstrong has managed to avoid the process. As was stated above several times, the investigation by Novitzky and Miller was not dropped due to lack of evidence. Not at all.

However, the argument you seem to make is that we cannot draw conclusions about Armstrong doping before he’s convicted. Really? Should I believe O.J. Simpson didn’t kill his wife and her lover, too? (Apologies if that’s a too American of a reference) There are volumes of evidence against Lance Armstrong, from separate, independent sources. All of whom seem to be saying the same thing – he doped.

Once you’re done reading clippings from newspaper and depositions, read Hamilton’s book that was mentioned earlier.

Wrong again. The grand jury and the prosecutor in charge of Armstrong’s case were ready to indict, however, an order from above came putting a halt to the investigation. It is not clear why it happened (although there are few theories), but it had nothing to do with lack of evidence. In fact, I don’t believe there is a single reputable news story out there where it was reported that the investigation was dropped because of lack of evidence. But of course that’s how Armstrong’s flak spun it.

I used to be of the same mentality, but that’s actually very far from the truth. At least with regard to EPO doping, those with naturally higher hematocrit actually benefit less from it than others. Percent increase in Hematocrit = percent increase in performance. So someone who’s Hematocrit is naturally 40 and boosts it to 50 with EPO will have an increase in performance of 25% (which is huge, considering the winner of the tour and the guy who finishes midpack are separated by single percentage points. Top 10 are even tighter, often within a percent.) On the other hand, someone with natural hematocrit of 47, would only get about a 5-6% boost in performance.

Then there’s the disparity with regard to doping technology, and different regions. In Italy and France, it’s illegal, while in Spain there is no law against doping products.

Then there are all the riders who refused to dope and weren’t even able to enter the sport, their dreams were essentially stolen by riders like Lance and other dopers of the era. Christophe Bassons comes to mind as a prime example.

Lance was the best, he was the best at doping himself up to win. Ever wonder why he was never a great classics rider? Because a rider who’s clean has a chance in a one day race, but in a long tour, a clean rider doesn’t stand a chance against someone on EPO and blood transfusions. It was far from a level playing field.

Colin, if you haven’t already, I highly recommend you read “The Secret Race” by T. Hamilton and D. Coyle that just came out. If you read it with an open mind and still have the same opinion, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.

“Pre-cancer, we were very close and I’m sure he wasn’t indulging in illicit products.” – WRONG!

Frankie and Besty Andreu were at his bedside when he listed steroids, EPO and other stuff he took before he had cancer to his doctor. They later testified to that under oath, in a deposition, in a case where they had nothing to win. In fact, some suspect that the doping in early 90s is what caused his cancer in the first place, but of course, that can never be proven or established.

You do realise that Livestrong hasn’t donated a single penny to research in years, right? They’ll confirm this. That’s not what they are all about. Their model is to help those with cancer live their lives, make those lives more comfortable and happier. No money goes to research.

Cancellara just finished and looks to be in a lot of pain. I guess we have our answer as to his injury.

Bradley Wiggins is the Olympic champ with 50:39. Over 52kph – very impressive! Looks like i called 2 of the 3 guys on the podium. 🙂

Marin, 51:21, Wiggo approaching.

Froome finishes in 51:37, taking more than a minute out of Rogers.

Micheal Rogers crosses the finish line with the fastest current time.

Froome has less than 5k to go.

Looks like it’s a done deal. Wiggo has 22 seconds on Martin at 29.9km. Martin would have to pull back more than a second/km for the rest of the race.

Tony Martin looks like he’s close to catching Phinney.

The way it looks now, Wiggo, Martin, Froome for gold, silver, bronze. Should be an exciting finish.

Vino goes across in 6th place right now. Will probably slide down a few spots when all is said and done.

Doesn’t look like Fabian is feeling good. Goes through the 2nd check in 4th, behind Froome.