View Full Version : LA's Second Chance
Jgrooms
10-09-2014, 08:41 PM
As some of us have been pointing out, the Redemption Tour has been underway. Now its in full sail and from no less than the Grand inquisitor himself.
The DOJ is gonna pull the plug, leaving the Freak twisting, Tygart & Lance will be doing photo ops on 'saving' the sport & Olde Tex will be smokin triathletes on Maui before ya know it.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/10/news/u-s-anti-doping-chief-tygart-hopes-armstrong-reveals_348909
ultraman6970
10-10-2014, 06:44 AM
JB is way too silent.
I realize I'm ignorant on the majority of the details of how this is going, but I wasn't aware the DOJ was "going to pull the plug". Please elaborate. Thanks.
Jgrooms
10-10-2014, 07:34 AM
I realize I'm ignorant on the majority of the details of how this is going, but I wasn't aware the DOJ was "going to pull the plug". Please elaborate. Thanks.
iMO. Taking too long. Reports of reduction in damages sought. And now one of their keys is making public statement about another chance. You will recall TT's prior position..,
Walter
10-10-2014, 07:50 AM
iMO. Taking too long. Reports of reduction in damages sought. And now one of their keys is making public statement about another chance. You will recall TT's prior position..,
Big civil cases with comprehensive discovery issues take a long time to get to trial. The delay here is not unusual.
LA's side is of course trying to reduce the damages that can be awarded. Standard defense practice as it cuts exposure in a trial and facilitates a settlement at a lower number. DOJ (the real Plaintiff's lawyer) is not trying to reduce the damages.
Tygart (the one who made the 2nd chance comment) is not part of the civil suit. His position makes no difference to the DOJ suit. That one is only about the Benjamins.
lovethesport
10-10-2014, 08:16 AM
As some of us have been pointing out, the Redemption Tour has been underway. Now its in full sail and from no less than the Grand inquisitor himself.
The DOJ is gonna pull the plug, leaving the Freak twisting, Tygart & Lance will be doing photo ops on 'saving' the sport & Olde Tex will be smokin triathletes on Maui before ya know it.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/10/news/u-s-anti-doping-chief-tygart-hopes-armstrong-reveals_348909
Frankly the public support on all sides is waning.. probably reduced charges...
but the DOJ has too much invested (prestige) to drop it. I hope he can compete again even if its only in Tri's.
CunegoFan
10-10-2014, 09:49 AM
As some of us have been pointing out, the Redemption Tour has been underway. Now its in full sail and from no less than the Grand inquisitor himself.
The DOJ is gonna pull the plug, leaving the Freak twisting, Tygart & Lance will be doing photo ops on 'saving' the sport & Olde Tex will be smokin triathletes on Maui before ya know it.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/10/news/u-s-anti-doping-chief-tygart-hopes-armstrong-reveals_348909
Tygart knows he overreached and the sanction looks ridiculous compared to the few months during the off-season he gave life long dopers like Danielson and Leipheimer. He took the same evidence to the case against Bruyneel; the panel rejected USADA's request for a life time ban and USADA dropped its attempt to ignore the statute of limitations because it knew that would be rejected as well. Over time, as it becomes more and more apparent to the general population that everyone was doping and Armstrong is accepted as the de facto winner of seven Tours, the punishment will look more and more unfair.
I suspect the reason Tygart overreached is, first, he wanted the publicity that would ensue and, second, he expected Armstrong to come begging to cooperate for a reduction. Armstrong feels he was treated unfairly--he was--and Armstrong's psychological makeup does not allow him to give Tygart the satisfaction. He cooperated with the CIRC instead. So the excessive sanction Tygart imposed is just hanging out there, looking more and more like a farce. If Bruyneel succeeds in getting CAS to reduce his sanction then Armstrong's will look more unjust. If the CIRC does a decent job then its report will detail the systemic doping and how necessary doping was to compete, which will also make Armstrong's sanction appear unfair.
Tygart is doing a lot of posturing as well. His call last year for Armstrong's last chance to come in and confess under oath was pure theater. He knows Armstrong is facing a legal onslaught and there is no way he could agree to the offer.
tiretrax
10-10-2014, 10:07 AM
Frankly the public support on all sides is waning.. probably reduced charges...
but the DOJ has too much invested (prestige) to drop it. I hope he can compete again even if its only in Tri's.
DOJ doesn't have that much invested that they couldn't drop it. Happens all the time. Whether they want to go through with a trial or settle for a few million is another issue.
Just curious as I have little to zero knowledge of the DOJ case, but how are they dealing with statute of limitations? Something to do with perjury by LA maybe?
Tygart knows he overreached and the sanction looks ridiculous compared to the few months during the off-season he gave life long dopers like Danielson and Leipheimer. He took the same evidence to the case against Bruyneel; the panel rejected USADA's request for a life time ban and USADA dropped its attempt to ignore the statute of limitations because it knew that would be rejected as well. Over time, as it becomes more and more apparent to the general population that everyone was doping and Armstrong is accepted as the de facto winner of seven Tours, the punishment will look more and more unfair.
I suspect the reason Tygart overreached is, first, he wanted the publicity that would ensue and, second, he expected Armstrong to come begging to cooperate for a reduction. Armstrong feels he was treated unfairly--he was--and Armstrong's psychological makeup does not allow him to give Tygart the satisfaction. He cooperated with the CIRC instead. So the excessive sanction Tygart imposed is just hanging out there, looking more and more like a farce. If Bruyneel succeeds in getting CAS to reduce his sanction then Armstrong's will look more unjust. If the CIRC does a decent job then its report will detail the systemic doping and how necessary doping was to compete, which will also make Armstrong's sanction appear unfair.
Tygart is doing a lot of posturing as well. His call last year for Armstrong's last chance to come in and confess under oath was pure theater. He knows Armstrong is facing a legal onslaught and there is no way he could agree to the offer.
How was Lance treated unfairly? He had every opportunity to spill the beans, just like everyone else, but he thought he was invincible and so kept giving the finger. He brought his downfall on himself. And to think that he could have avoided everything just by hooking Floyd up with a ride...
texbike
10-10-2014, 10:52 AM
How was Lance treated unfairly? He had every opportunity to spill the beans, just like everyone else, but he thought he was invincible and so kept giving the finger. He brought his downfall on himself. And to think that he could have avoided everything just by hooking Floyd up with a ride...
Exactly.
I hope he can compete again even if its only in Tri's.
Screw Lance. I hope he never has the chance to compete in any professional sport again. The doping part doesn't bother me (since EVERYONE was doing it) as much as the continual lying, denying, bullying, and BS political theater. If he had taken the approach of "Yep, I screwed up. I'm sorry and I'd like to make amends." I would be much more understanding. Instead every move on his part has been calculated to limit legal liability, minimize financial repercussions, and set himself up for future revenue streams from books, movie deals, talk-show circuits, and politics. Call it smart if you like, but I'd prefer to call it a "self-serving, ego-centric, screw-everyone-else, a**hole strategy". I respect Lance for his skills on the bike, but the rest of it is too much for me.
Texbike
CunegoFan
10-10-2014, 11:10 AM
DOJ doesn't have that much invested that they couldn't drop it. Happens all the time. Whether they want to go through with a trial or settle for a few million is another issue.
The case won't be dropped. It will settle. Armstrong will spend the next year using discovery to dig for something that will start the SOL clock running from an earlier date. Given the amount of controversy over "is he or isn't he doping" over the years, it seems likely that he will find stuff that points to some Postal officials acknowledging that doping is highly likely--or can be twisted to support that argument. He will be looking for a bombshell but discussion about contigency plans for how to handle Armstrong getting caught will be useful.
CunegoFan
10-10-2014, 11:15 AM
Instead every move on his part has been calculated to limit legal liability, minimize financial repercussions, and set himself up for future revenue streams from books, movie deals, talk-show circuits, and politics.
This sounds exactly like J. Vaughters' strategy but with less self-righteousness. If you want to see calculated moves then try to read the affidavits without laughing cynically.
malcolm
10-10-2014, 11:21 AM
How was Lance treated unfairly? He had every opportunity to spill the beans, just like everyone else, but he thought he was invincible and so kept giving the finger. He brought his downfall on himself. And to think that he could have avoided everything just by hooking Floyd up with a ride...
I agree with this and don't care if LA is being treated unfairly or not, he made his bed. I don't think he had the same opportunity to come clean as everyone else. Lets remember none of these guys admitted anything until they had no choice and their basic choice was talk to give the goods on LA or face prosecution yourself. I don't think that was an option available to LA or at least by the time he knew he had no choice it was too late to avoid prosecution. Most everyone else gave him up or admitted to doping only to save themselves once the jig was up.
Mark McM
10-10-2014, 01:06 PM
I agree with this and don't care if LA is being treated unfairly or not, he made his bed. I don't think he had the same opportunity to come clean as everyone else. Lets remember none of these guys admitted anything until they had no choice and their basic choice was talk to give the goods on LA or face prosecution yourself.
Several of them had already come forward before the investigation, including Frankie Andreu, Steve Swart, Floyd Landis, and Tyler Hamilton. In the case of the other cyclists, there was no option to avoid sanctions. Sanctions were given to almost all of cyclists who gave affidavits.
I don't think that was an option available to LA or at least by the time he knew he had no choice it was too late to avoid prosecution.
According to Tygart (and there is no reason to doubt him) Armstrong was asked to sit down with USADA, but he refused. Tygart also indicated that if Armstrong had cooperated, he would received a shorter sanction (just as the others who had cooperated got shorter sanctions).
Most everyone else gave him up or admitted to doping only to save themselves once the jig was up.
Well, the jig was up, but the only ones who avoided sanctions were those for whom the statuate of limitations expired (like Voughters).
malcolm
10-10-2014, 01:52 PM
I was talking prosecution not really sanctions, but we can include that as well. I'll be the first to say I don't know all the specifics cause well I don't, but I don't recall anyone including the ones you mentioned that came forward before they were caught or even when they were initially caught. My point was they gave up doping info only once they were cornered. Not one came forward of his own accord and said this is the way it was and this is what I/we did. Lance lied to the bitter end but he was always going to be punished, never any hope for just telling all and getting off scott free or with just a year or two off the bike. That's my uninformed idea of the way it went.
Mark McM
10-10-2014, 02:15 PM
I was talking prosecution not really sanctions, but we can include that as well.
What prosecutions (other than sporting sanctions) are you talking about? Sports doping isn't illegal in the U.S. The only one that is facing any kind of prosecution or lawsuit is Armstrong, and it isn't for doping, it is for fraud (breach of contract to U.S. Postal) and perjury (lying under oath). In other words, non-sporting offenses and crimes.
I'll be the first to say I don't know all the specifics cause well I don't, but I don't recall anyone including the ones you mentioned that came forward before they were caught or even when they were initially caught. My point was they gave up doping info only once they were cornered. Not one came forward of his own accord and said this is the way it was and this is what I/we did.
As far as coming forward before being caught, look at the first two names I mentioned: Frankie Andreu and Steven Swart. Both came forward and admitted their own transgressions long before the USADA investigation (both had even testified in the Armstrong vs. SCA Promotions case back 2006, long before the USADA investigation).
bcroslin
10-10-2014, 02:17 PM
If LA had come clean at the very beginning he would likely be competing in tri events right about now after serving a 2-year ban.
Lance wasn't treated unfairly. There were rules, he broke them and would have likely been sanctioned for 2-6 years had he cooperated. It's the other riders who were treated unfairly in that they broke the same rules and should have served 2-year sanctions like everyone else.
malcolm
10-10-2014, 02:39 PM
What prosecutions (other than sporting sanctions) are you talking about? Sports doping isn't illegal in the U.S. The only one that is facing any kind of prosecution or lawsuit is Armstrong, and it isn't for doping, it is for fraud (breach of contract to U.S. Postal) and perjury (lying under oath). In other words, non-sporting offenses and crimes.
As far as coming forward before being caught, look at the first two names I mentioned: Frankie Andreu and Steven Swart. Both came forward and admitted their own transgressions long before the USADA investigation (both had even testified in the Armstrong vs. SCA Promotions case back 2006, long before the USADA investigation).
yes to the non sporting issues/crimes. My understanding is Frankie didn't come forward until he was faced with testifying under oath at which point perjury is a concern he then told his tale. Swart I don't know the story.
My point is none of these guys came forward for the good of cycling or because they were doing the right thing. There may have been various reasons, revenge or what have you but for most it was after they were caught in their lies with no way out and did it to avoid sporting sanctions and/or legal issues from possible perjury etc., but basically self serving.
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying LA was/is being treated unfairly as I've said numerous times if you are on the top of a dirty heap when the times are good expect to be on top when it comes time to pay the piper. I just don't think LA was ever in a position to tell all and walk away like some could/did and rightly so. If I'm wrong so be it, but its my opinion uninformed as it may be.
CunegoFan
10-10-2014, 03:06 PM
Lance wasn't treated unfairly. There were rules, he broke them...
Rules that everyone in the sport knew were a charade for the public so the UCI could pretend it was against doping. They were not meant to be enforced, and in fact the UCI would often help riders avoid sanctions.
It's the other riders who were treated unfairly in that they broke the same rules and should have served 2-year sanctions like everyone else.
There is the matter of stepping outside the SOL. And those slap on the wrist sanctions for others were not given in a vacuum. They were given in order to present the fiction that Armstrong deserves blame for other riders' choices. In his more honest moments, Tygart admits that the majority of riders were doping. The interviews with riders would have certainly exposed just how extensive it was. Yet his approach ignores the reality by blaming a few individuals; it has nothing to do with cleaning up cycling.
Mark McM
10-10-2014, 03:19 PM
yes to the non sporting issues/crimes. My understanding is Frankie didn't come forward until he was faced with testifying under oath at which point perjury is a concern he then told his tale. Swart I don't know the story.
Your understanding is wrong, then. Swart admitted to doping in 2004, and Andreu admitted in 2006, long before the USADA investigation. Neither had failed a drug test, nor was under any investigation. Both came forward in the interest of being truthful, and that it might help future cyclists from being faced with the same choices. In fact, Emma O'Reilly has stated that, after being attacked by the Armstrong propaganda machine, she drew strength from a newspaper interview given by Swart.
Mark McM
10-10-2014, 03:28 PM
In his more honest moments, Tygart admits that the majority of riders were doping. The interviews with riders would have certainly exposed just how extensive it was. Yet his approach ignores the reality by blaming a few individuals; it has nothing to do with cleaning up cycling.
Perhaps Tygart knew that to kill the serpent, you cut off its head. He knew that getting a few small fish won't deter others, but if you show that even the most powerful figures can get caught, others will be wary to try.
The USADA Reasoned Decision is directly responsible for shake ups at te UCI and the removal of McQuad, and in sponsors being much more vigilant about the anti-doping stances in the teams they support.
Maybe Armstrong got extra attention so as to be made an example of, but that example has had real and positive affects all over cycling. Armstrong received a punishment that was within the rules of the sport, and the sport is better for it.
djg21
10-10-2014, 03:34 PM
Big civil cases with comprehensive discovery issues take a long time to get to trial. The delay here is not unusual.
LA's side is of course trying to reduce the damages that can be awarded. Standard defense practice as it cuts exposure in a trial and facilitates a settlement at a lower number. DOJ (the real Plaintiff's lawyer) is not trying to reduce the damages.
Tygart (the one who made the 2nd chance comment) is not part of the civil suit. His position makes no difference to the DOJ suit. That one is only about the Benjamins.
There likely will be no talk of settlement until discovery and depositions are completed and both the Government and Armstrong move for summary judgment.
Mark McM
10-10-2014, 03:46 PM
There likely will be no talk of settlement until discovery and depositions are completed and both the Government and Armstrong move for summary judgment.
And what if the defendants don't want to give depositions? Armstrong has already reached a settlement in one lawsuit (with Acceptance Insurance) literally hours before the time he was required to give a deposition.
djg21
10-10-2014, 05:25 PM
And what if the defendants don't want to give depositions? Armstrong has already reached a settlement in one lawsuit (with Acceptance Insurance) literally hours before the time he was required to give a deposition.
As a practical matter, a defendant in a civil lawsuit doesn't have the option of refusing to participate in discovery or appear for deposition. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, sanctions can be imposed against a party to litigation who refuses to appear for deposition, and if the failure is willful, the sanction can be in a form of a judgment against the noncompliant party. In other words, the plaintiff could get the full measure of relief requested in its Complaint.
The only way that Armstrong could avoid deposition (if it is properly noticed (a notice of deposition to a civil litigant is sort of like a subpoena)) is by settling or confessing judgment. There is no way Armstrong will confess judgment, and I'd guess any settlement demand made by the Government at this stage of the litigation would be prohibitively large from Armstrong's perspective. But the threat of being subject to deposition often does cause litigants to reassess the strengths of their respective positions.
CunegoFan
10-10-2014, 06:04 PM
Perhaps Tygart knew that to kill the serpent, you cut off its head. He knew that getting a few small fish won't deter others, but if you show that even the most powerful figures can get caught, others will be wary to try.
Nice theory. Unfortunately Tygart himself has asserted USADA did not target Armstrong. I know it is unbelievable, even laughable, especially in light of him offering Landis a deal in 2006 in exchange for rolling on Armstrong, but nevertheless Tygart's official story is that he was only trying to get everyone's cooperation so he could spend American taxpayers' money to clean up a European sport.
The USADA Reasoned Decision is directly responsible for shake ups at te UCI and the removal of McQuad,
McQuaid was removed because he was politically inept moron who dealt with cycling's stakeholders in a highhanded manner and had spent his entire reign making enemies in Europe. It was a long time coming and it had little to do with doping. He and Verbruggen were standing in the way of change that many wanted. Cookson's first order of business was not to beef up the fight against doping. It was to undermine the Lugano Charter by replacing personnel and easing technical restrictions. There will be a lot of money made because of McQuaid's removal. Men like Dr. Zarzoli were left in place to hand out dubious TUEs
and in sponsors being much more vigilant about the anti-doping stances in the teams they support.
This had nothing to do with Armstrong. This change had been ongoing for years. It was a product of the many scandals that predate the Reasoned Decision along with a gradual tightening of the tolerance for doping. It is also due to the Pro Tour/World Tour requiring bigger team budgets, which means sponsors are bigger companies that are hypersensitive to negative PR. The Armstrong decision came about very late in the process. T-Mobile has already left abruptly, leaving twenty to thirty million euro on the table, and Rabobank was so leery of adverse publiclity in 2007 that it pulled Rasmussen despite certain victory in the Tour.
Maybe Armstrong got extra attention so as to be made an example of, but that example has had real and positive affects all over cycling.
How is it better? Froome and Porte's times up the Madone are faster than Armstrong's. Contador, Froome, Nibali, and Quintana would all be competitive racing in 2002. Getting rid of Armstrong has not changed anything for the better. In fact it has made it worse because he is a convenient bad guy people in the sport point to as they bamboozle the prols with talk of a new era instead of dealing with the issue as a systemic problem.
Walter
10-10-2014, 06:06 PM
***
Tygart is doing a lot of posturing as well. His call last year for Armstrong's last chance to come in and confess under oath was pure theater. He knows Armstrong is facing a legal onslaught and there is no way he could agree to the offer.
I agree that no one facing a civil suit will speak of what they did until the suit is resolved whenever possible. The thing that baffles me is that LA did speak to the CIRC, presumably about the same issues TT wanted to discuss. I cannot see that as being privileged in any way, nor immune from a discovery request.
Other than ego and not wanting to bow to TT's requests, why do one and not the other when the other may gain you a reduction in your sanction? He is certainly going to face the same questions in his depo in the whistleblower suit.
Rueda Tropical
10-11-2014, 12:13 AM
Rules that everyone in the sport knew were a charade for the public so the UCI could pretend it was against doping. They were not meant to be enforced, and in fact the UCI would often help riders avoid sanctions.
So what? So the riders where corrupt and the UCI was corrupt. Doesn't mean you get a pass if you get nailed. The deal was you weren't supposed to get caught. Indurain went off quietly and didn't push his luck. In the end Armstrong screwed up, got greedy and came back, then blew off a former partner in crime and got himself exposed.
LA never gave a crap about what was 'fair', why should that be a consideration now?
LA was top dog reaping the benefits, now he is top dog reaping the consequences. He's not a victim.
93legendti
10-11-2014, 08:09 AM
Disparate treatment/enforcement is never fair-even if you don't like the victim of such treatment...
djg21
10-11-2014, 08:45 AM
Disparate treatment/enforcement is never fair-even if you don't like the victim of such treatment...
Disparate treatment or prosecutorial discretion? Disparate treatment is only an issue if it is on account of improper and unlawful considerations, i.e, is unlawfully discriminatory. Prosecutors always have discretion to charge or not to charge. One legitimate consideration is "bang for the buck" -- given limited enforcement resources, what prosecution will have the biggest impact, generate the most attention, and have the largest deterrent effect.
Selective enforcement/prosecution arguments, IMO, are BS. There could be no "selective enforcement" if the complaining perp hadn't engaged in the unlawful activity.
malcolm
10-11-2014, 12:12 PM
Your understanding is wrong, then. Swart admitted to doping in 2004, and Andreu admitted in 2006, long before the USADA investigation. Neither had failed a drug test, nor was under any investigation. Both came forward in the interest of being truthful, and that it might help future cyclists from being faced with the same choices. In fact, Emma O'Reilly has stated that, after being attacked by the Armstrong propaganda machine, she drew strength from a newspaper interview given by Swart.
I stand corrected, thanks. Makes me feel a little better about Frankie who I always thought was a class act. I still don't recall anyone ever really saying this is the way it was and really laying it out, which is different from admitting personal doping, until the feds were involved investigating everything and everyone. One thing we forget as people looking from the outside in is that it's very difficult to do the right thing and easy to justify going with the flow when you are caught up in the mix especially when you are part of an ever growing web of lies.
CunegoFan
10-11-2014, 12:51 PM
So what?
The what is that people are applying rules in the today's environment to the environment that existed fifteen years ago. Things change over time. How doping is tolerated and handled is dramatically different in 2014 than it was in 1998. Practices that were winked at in 1998 can end careers in 2014. What's next? Stripping Merckx and every previous TdF winner except Saint LeMond?
LA's case is a particularly egregious demonstration. USADA applied the WADA code not just beyond the statute of limitations but beyond the existence of WADA. In 1998 WADA did not exist. The UCI did not sign on to the WADA code until after the 2004 TdF. Concepts like non-analytical positives did not exist until later editions of the WADA code. In 1998 there were no UCI rules that allowed a rider's results to be stripped fifteen years after a race. Explain that.
If the anti-doping agencies are such sticklers for rules then maybe they should start by following the rules themselves instead of using an ends justify the means MO.
CunegoFan
10-11-2014, 12:55 PM
I stand corrected, thanks. Makes me feel a little better about Frankie who I always thought was a class act. I still don't recall anyone ever really saying this is the way it was and really laying it out, which is different from admitting personal doping, until the feds were involved investigating everything and everyone. One thing we forget as people looking from the outside in is that it's very difficult to do the right thing and easy to justify going with the flow when you are caught up in the mix especially when you are part of an ever growing web of lies.
Andreu admitted after he was sucked into the SCA arbitration. He was going to be exposed anyway. And as you point out, most of these riders, including Andreu, use a ludicrous pattern of admission that basically boils down to, "I doped but I don't know anything about anyone else." It is like they invented doping themselves on their own in their free time.
Andreu's career was also over by the time he started talking.
Rueda Tropical
10-12-2014, 09:14 PM
What's next? Stripping Merckx and every previous TdF winner except Saint LeMond?
If Merckx or his managers and doctors decide to make a comeback maybe they should think about it. Otherwise its ancient history that won't impact the sport today.
harryblack
10-12-2014, 11:04 PM
As some of us have been pointing out, the Redemption Tour has been underway. Now its in full sail and from no less than the Grand inquisitor himself.
The DOJ is gonna pull the plug, leaving the Freak twisting, Tygart & Lance will be doing photo ops on 'saving' the sport & Olde Tex will be smokin triathletes on Maui before ya know it.
http://velonews.competitor.com/2014/10/news/u-s-anti-doping-chief-tygart-hopes-armstrong-reveals_348909
Serious Q: Why is Travis even talking about this still? Shouldn't this be his rearview mirror 'triumph' and he can point towards 'bright future' here, ongoing investigation, discouragement of dopage elsewhere, etc?
This not implied defense of LA-- or loathsome Bill Stapleton et al, who often seem to skate by-- but what exactly has TT done since?
also curious if Holder resignation has any potential impact on settlement or are career DOJ people in place to see it through?
Not that I believe Floyd deserves a penny but...
Would still be interesting to see LA in masters triathlon, hah.
Elefantino
10-13-2014, 12:05 AM
I hate to appear hypocritical by posting on this thread, but I can honestly say that for the first time I actually no longer care about him. If he stays in the wilderness, that's OK. If he returns, that's OK too. My world has moved on and it feels good.
CunegoFan
10-13-2014, 12:20 AM
Serious Q: Why is Travis even talking about this still? Shouldn't this be his rearview mirror 'triumph' and he can point towards 'bright future' here, ongoing investigation, discouragement of dopage elsewhere, etc?
This not implied defense of LA-- or loathsome Bill Stapleton et al, who often seem to skate by-- but what exactly has TT done since?
A couple of days ago he was telling the press that Justin Gatlin deserves a second chance [Actually I guess it would be a third chance.] and redemption.
He also had this gem:
"We've looked at it and you have to be cautious about changing the goalposts in the middle of the game... That's not fair. What's fair, and what athletes and the public rely on, is a set of rules that are enforced evenly."
Apparently the statute of limitations is not one of those rules that athletes and the public can rely on if it can be ignored in order for Tygart to get publicity.
brando
10-13-2014, 12:22 AM
Thanks for the well-reasoned posts, CunegoFan.
54ny77
10-13-2014, 12:28 AM
Maybe he'll join a team sponsored by LeMond bicycles.
rain dogs
10-13-2014, 12:41 AM
The what is that people are applying rules in the today's environment to the environment that existed fifteen years ago.
There is nothing in any cycling 'code' anywhere in any organization for corruption, and collusion between a rider and the organizing body. There is no sanction process for that.
So, because the violations are such an outlier, and that the evidence and testimony was irrefutable of gross breaches of fair sport there is somehow grounds LA shouldn't be sanctioned because it wasn't written in the code of a process for a corrupt organizing body?
That sense doesn't any make.
Sanction should fit the violation. I ask, if LA doesn't deserve a lifetime ban, what rider behavior should?
93legendti
10-13-2014, 06:24 AM
There is nothing in any cycling 'code' anywhere in any organization for corruption, and collusion between a rider and the organizing body. There is no sanction process for that.
So, because the violations are such an outlier, and that the evidence and testimony was irrefutable of gross breaches of fair sport there is somehow grounds LA shouldn't be sanctioned because it wasn't written in the code of a process for a corrupt organizing body?
That sense doesn't any make.
Sanction should fit the violation. I ask, if LA doesn't deserve a lifetime ban, what rider behavior should?
The above post makes no sense.
What is the lifetime ban for? Being mean?
What is the "violation"? Whatever is decided necessary to get rid of Armstrong?
He either broke existing rules or he didn't.
If he didn't break existing rules. He didn't "violate" them.
You can't sanction for what wasn't sanctionable.
Riders must have prior notice that certain behavior is unacceptable.
Why not just pass a law the day after he won his 7th TdF that winning 7 in a row is "unfair", and strip him of wins?
merlincustom1
10-13-2014, 06:56 AM
A couple of days ago he was telling the press that Justin Gatlin deserves a second chance [Actually I guess it would be a third chance.] and redemption.
He also had this gem:
"We've looked at it and you have to be cautious about changing the goalposts in the middle of the game... That's not fair. What's fair, and what athletes and the public rely on, is a set of rules that are enforced evenly."
Apparently the statute of limitations is not one of those rules that athletes and the public can rely on if it can be ignored in order for Tygart to get publicity.
The sol was an overreach. Usada tried it once before in a lower profile case. I forget the outcome. The theory for extension is sort of a discovery rule exception to the Sol that posits extension based upon the attempt to conceal by the wrongdoer. You can't blame usada. Prosecutors always overcharge. The job of the defense is to fight it. Except here LA took his ball and went home. That was a huge mistake, but his ego would allow nothing less. Had he fought the case the stripping would have gone back but 8 years. As for the lifetime ban, once the allegations were deemed admitted by his refusal to participate, there was really no other choice. For all of you who think the ban was excessive, Kirk O'Bee was banned for life for a lot less.
Mark McM
10-13-2014, 10:34 AM
Serious Q: Why is Travis even talking about this still? Shouldn't this be his rearview mirror 'triumph' and he can point towards 'bright future' here, ongoing investigation, discouragement of dopage elsewhere, etc?
It probably came up because Armstrong, through the DOJ case, has become in the new again recently. The first step cleaning up the sport is bringing out the full truth about what really went on, and Armstrong has still not been forthcoming with everything he knows. So far, he has only admitted to those things which became undeniable - Tygart wants to find out what Armstrong still isn't telling.
Me personally, I'd like to hear about what comes out if and when Thomas Wiesel is forced to testify under oath.
54ny77
10-13-2014, 11:14 AM
that will never happen.
he's probably got more insulation that a sherpa headed up mt. everest.
Me personally, I'd like to hear about what comes out if and when Thomas Wiesel is forced to testify under oath.
It probably came up because Armstrong, through the DOJ case, has become in the new again recently. The first step cleaning up the sport is bringing out the full truth about what really went on, and Armstrong has still not been forthcoming with everything he knows. So far, he has only admitted to those things which became undeniable - Tygart wants to find out what Armstrong still isn't telling.
Me personally, I'd like to hear about what comes out if and when Thomas Wiesel is forced to testify under oath.
The problem for me believing Tygart wanting to have the whole truth is his acceptance of all the guys who testified against LA stopping their doping at the same time. Conveniently that date is at SOL.
Mark McM
10-13-2014, 12:40 PM
The problem for me believing Tygart wanting to have the whole truth is his acceptance of all the guys who testified against LA stopping their doping at the same time. Conveniently that date is at SOL.
It sounds like you, like many others have been sipping the Armstrong PR Koo-Aid, and haven't actually checked the facts.
For some (Vaughter, Andreu, et al), they had retired long enough ago that the statute of limitations had run out, but not most of them. Hincapie, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Barry, Danielson and Liepheimer all were sanctioned, including both suspensions and nullification of results. For example, Leipheimer didn't claim to have stopped doping until a year after Armstrong retired, and even then, he hadn't ridden on Armstrong's team since 2002 (before the statute of limateions) and couldn't have provided any testimony against Armstrong during that time. He had all of his results from 1999 - 2006 and some of his results from 2007 voided. In other words, he didn't 'conveniently claim to stop doping when he left Armstrong's team'. He admitted having doped for an additional 5 years - including for his TdF podium finish in 2007 (after Armstrong had retired), which was nullified. The rest also lost many of their biggest results - remember that mountain stage Hincapie won in the 2006 TdF (including wearing the yellow jersey for 2 state), his win at Kurne-Brussels-Kurne, and his 2nd place at Paris-Roubaix (his best finish at this race)? All gone.
For some (Vaughter, Andreu, etc.) that was true, but not for most of them. Hincapie, Vande Velde, Zabriskie, Barry, Danielson and Liepheimer all were sanctioned, including both suspensions and nullification of results. For example, Leipheimer didn't claim to have stopped doping for another year after Armstrong retired. He had all of his results from 1999 - 2006 and some of his results from 2007 voided. Remember that mountain stage Hincapie won in the TdeF? Gone. And Leipheimer's 3rd place podium finish at the 2007 TdF (after Armstrong retired)? Gone.
Of the guys who continued to race after LA retired the first time, did not all or most say they stopped doping in like 2006 or 07? I really could be wrong about this as I didn't follow it really closely, but it's what I remember reading.
It sounds like you, like many others have been sipping the Armstrong PR Koo-Aid, and haven't actually checked the facts.
Don't really need the snarky remark addendum. I'm not a LA apologist and really don't care if the ban gets lifted or not. Just don't buy Tygart's line of getting to the whole truth and nothing but the truth BS.
CunegoFan
10-13-2014, 01:40 PM
The problem for me believing Tygart wanting to have the whole truth is his acceptance of all the guys who testified against LA stopping their doping at the same time. Conveniently that date is at SOL.
This. Most admitted to stopping just within the statute of limitations. Their uniform story is that they all stopped doping on their own years before the federal investigation. It is not believable. After he "stopped" doping, Leipheimer placed second at the Vuelta in 2008; the only reason he did not win is Contador accumulated bonus seconds at the end of climbing stages with his superior uphill sprint. He took third in the Olympic ITT, placed fourth at a world's ITT, and won the Tour de Suisse. After Vandevelde "quit" he went on to race for Liberty Seguros then CSC then on Garmin found out he had it in him to take fourth at the Tour. Yup, he got better while racing clean. :rolleyes: Too bad he wasted his talents doping earlier in his career.
The affidavits were cookie cutter documents, so much so that in the aftermath of the reasoned decision someone put up a joke website where you typed in your name and it would generate a USADA style affidavit complete with assurances that you stopped doping in 2006.
Tygart went beyond accepting the implausible stories of riders. He used them to construct a narrative that excused riders by blaming everything on a few people. He could have used the information to do some good. He could have published the truth: That the natural difference in performance between elite riders is very small and the effect of blood vector doping is very large, large enough to overwhelm natural differences, thus blood doping created a situation where everyone needed to dope to achieve the level required to race at Div 1/Pro Tour/World Tour level. Instead he employed the standard scapegoat strategy used by the UCI for the last fifteen years. The end result has been the creation of a convenient bad guy, an a-hole who can be used to personify an entire era and allow those guilty of the same thing to keep their heads down and pretend that everything has changed now that a few bad apples have been removed from the bushel. Tygart might as well work for McQuaid and Vergbruggen. He has done their job of protecting the system better than they ever did.
Mark McM
10-13-2014, 02:15 PM
You claim that Tygart made up a narrative to fit his purpose, but you seem to be doing the same thing.
Leipheimer stopped riding with Armstrong after 2002 (before the statute of limitations). Why admit to doping for an additional 5 years (which resulted in the loss of his best results)? You wonder why some of these riders that claim to have stopped doping in 2006 still were able to get good placings later. But you fail to note that the average racing speeds also decreased during this time period, hinting that doping in cycling was waining, and making it more plausible that cyclist could win without doping.
In this paper putting the Armstrong era in context (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/AIC.html), there is a graph of the winning speeds up Alpe d'Huez:
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/figures/AlpeDHuezspeedplotFastest.jpg
As can be seen, the speeds increased dramatically at about the same time that EPO was introduced to the peleton (~1990), stayed high during Armstrong's tenure, but decreased toward pre-EPO levels after Armstrong retired in 2006.
In this graph of winning average speeds at the Tour de France, a similar trend can be seen:
http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Cycling/LookingAtTheData/figures/speedplotYears1970to2012.jpg
As can be seen, average speeds increased dramatically during Armstrong's winning years, and then dropped dramatically afterward.
This data supports the contention in the affadavits that riders did stop doping in the post-Armstrong era.
rain dogs
10-13-2014, 05:22 PM
What is the lifetime ban for? Being mean?
Are you new to the sport? I ask seriously, cause I don't know if it's worth the time it would take to bring up to date. In brief:
1. USADA has bio passport evidence that LA's profile had anomalies during his comeback (That's sanctionable for 2 years)
2. USADA has evidence, testimony and admission of blood doping in 2005 (within the 8 year statute of limitations when the investigation began) (That's sanctionable for 2 years, but with the above bio-passport, it's a life ban.)
3. USADA has evidence and testimony of a doping anomalies in Switzerland that was covered up by the UCI. (Corruption and Collusion)
4. USADA has evidence, testimony and admission of a doping positive during the 99 Tour for Corticosteriods covered up by a false TUE allowed by the UCI. (Corruption and Collusion)
5. USADA has evidence of EPO in blood samples from the 2001 TdF from retroactive testing (outside of the statue of limitations)
6. USADA has evidence, ytestimony and admission to blod dopping and PED use from the period of 1986 (I think... not looking it up) through 2005.
You can read it all in the reasoned decision.
That's not worth a life ban? :confused: Again, if that's not, what is?
93legendti
10-13-2014, 05:27 PM
Are you new to the sport? I ask seriously, cause I don't know if it's worth the time it would take to bring up to date. In brief:
1. USADA has bio passport evidence that LA's profile had anomalies during his comeback (That's sanctionable for 2 years)
2. USADA has evidence, testimony and admission of blood doping in 2004 (within the 8 year statute of limitations when the investigation began) (That's sanctionable for 2 years, but with the above bio-passport, it's a life ban.)
3. USADA has evidence and testimony of a doping positive in Switzerland that was covered up by the UCI. (Corruption and Collusion)
4. USADA has evidence, testimony and admission of a doping positive during the 99 Tour for Corticosteriods covered up by a false TUE allowed by the UCI. (Corruption and Collusion)
5. USADA has evidence of EPO in blood samples from the 2001 TdF from retroactive testing (outside of the statue of limitations)
6. USADA has evidence, ytestimony and admission to blod dopping and PED use from the period of 1986 (I think... not looking it up) through 2005.
You can read it all in the reasoned decision.
That's not worth a life ban? :confused: Again, if that's not, what is?
Yes, I think you are confused. You should read your earlier post:
There is nothing in any cycling 'code' anywhere in any organization for corruption, and collusion between a rider and the organizing body. There is no sanction process for that.
So, because the violations are such an outlier, and that the evidence and testimony was irrefutable of gross breaches of fair sport there is somehow grounds LA shouldn't be sanctioned because it wasn't written in the code of a process for a corrupt organizing body?
That sense doesn't any make.
Sanction should fit the violation. I ask, if LA doesn't deserve a lifetime ban, what rider behavior should?
Which was in response to this post:
The what is that people are applying rules in the today's environment to the environment that existed fifteen years ago. Things change over time. How doping is tolerated and handled is dramatically different in 2014 than it was in 1998. Practices that were winked at in 1998 can end careers in 2014. What's next? Stripping Merckx and every previous TdF winner except Saint LeMond?
LA's case is a particularly egregious demonstration. USADA applied the WADA code not just beyond the statute of limitations but beyond the existence of WADA. In 1998 WADA did not exist. The UCI did not sign on to the WADA code until after the 2004 TdF. Concepts like non-analytical positives did not exist until later editions of the WADA code. In 1998 there were no UCI rules that allowed a rider's results to be stripped fifteen years after a race. Explain that.
If the anti-doping agencies are such sticklers for rules then maybe they should start by following the rules themselves instead of using an ends justify the means MO.
Pick which one you claim LA was banned for: being mean, or for things he did before they were a basis for banning.
rain dogs
10-13-2014, 05:36 PM
Yes, I think you are confused. You should read your earlier post:
I don't understand what you're driving at?
Are you saying that because the UCI didn't write a sanction process for any scenario in which they may become corrupted and collude with riders to cover up PED use, that said rider shouldn't be punished for his PED use and blood doping?
how would that look:
"In cases in which we, the organizing body, are bought, and/or accept bribes, and or lie to the media to protect a rider, and/or ignore evidence of PED use, the process that we the UCI will use to sanction the protected rider in question......
He was banned for life for the above six reasons listed.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.