Lance Armstrong: From hero to zero

[klr]

So it's official: The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) will strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles, and the world cycling body (UCI) will have to follow suit.

Of course, some of those who are going to be re-classified as winners are themselves card-carrying dopers. You gotta love cycling ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384

[Seth]

So it's official: The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) will strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles, and the world cycling body (UCI) will have to follow suit.

Of course, some of those who are going to be re-classified as winners are themselves card-carrying dopers. You gotta love cycling ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384

Problem is the USADA doesn't have the authority to do so. It's a witch hunt.

[SteveB]

He was never my hero though.

[Sean Hayden]

Christ. He can't unwin them.

[rachelbean]

So it's official: The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) will strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles, and the world cycling body (UCI) will have to follow suit.

Of course, some of those who are going to be re-classified as winners are themselves card-carrying dopers. You gotta love cycling ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384

Problem is the USADA doesn't have the authority to do so. It's a witch hunt.

The USADA can't strip him of anything. They have no right or jurisdiction.

[klr]

So it's official: The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) will strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles, and the world cycling body (UCI) will have to follow suit.

Of course, some of those who are going to be re-classified as winners are themselves card-carrying dopers. You gotta love cycling ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19364384

Problem is the USADA doesn't have the authority to do so. It's a witch hunt.

The USADA can't strip him of anything. They have no right or jurisdiction.

Actually, that's not the case. USADA is the 800-pound gorilla of the anti-doping world. Wait for the absolute sh*t-storm if UCI (the world cycling body) tries to wriggle out of its' responsibilities on this one. UCI is already in very serious trouble over having let cycling descend into the absolute mess that it is. If it doesn't fall into line and strip Armstrong of his titles, there's a very real chance that cycling would get thrown out of the Olympics, and that would just be the start of the trouble.

BTW, the current head of the UCI is an Irishman (Pat McQuaid), whose commitment to fighting doping in cycling has been (shall we say) less than satisfactory.

http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/06/what-a-mess/



... and that's only the "Armstrong years". Doping in cycling goes back many decades.

[Pappa]

The USADA have said they'll release the evidence in due course (once some connected cases have been dealt with). It'll be interesting what the outcome is. Armstrong has pointed out that he's never failed a doping test, and the tests were all carried out by the UCI.

I think Armstrong and the UCI are right about the USADA not having the jurisdiction to strip the titles. Yes, they could cause the UCI to be thrown out of the Olympics (because the UCI are forced to comply with world anti-doping rules) or impose other sanctions, but that doesn't mean they have the power to strip titles awarded by a different body, and notably a different body that has never failed Armstrong in a dope test.

[klr]

The USADA have said they'll release the evidence in due course (once some connected cases have been dealt with). It'll be interesting what the outcome is. Armstrong has pointed out that he's never failed a doping test, and the tests were all carried out by the UCI.

I think Armstrong and the UCI are right about the USADA not having the jurisdiction to strip the titles. Yes, they could cause the UCI to be thrown out of the Olympics (because the UCI are forced to comply with world anti-doping rules) or impose other sanctions, but that doesn't mean they have the power to strip titles awarded by a different body, and notably a different body that has never failed Armstrong in a dope test.

This is what is politely referred to as a "parliamentary untruth" on Armstrong's part, but I won't expand on that just now - work y'know.

If Armstrong had decided to defend his corner, then everything would have come out in court, which he is desperate to avoid. It might well come out anyway, especially if the UCI tries to weasel out of its responsibilities. Nothing in Armstrong's personality suggests that he's the sort of person who would just "give up" in the face of a supposed "witch hunt". If he was innocent, he'd have nothing to fear. The accusations against Armstrong include collusion, cover-ups and everything else besides, implicating the UCI. It would not the first time that a sporting body had been directly complicit in not just turning a blind eye to doping, but facilitating it.

Some general commentary: The idea that Armstrong could have won seven tours in a row "clean", ahead of a veritable rogues' gallery of cheats* - strains my credulity well beyond breaking point.

*See the above graphic.

[Pappa]

The USADA have said they'll release the evidence in due course (once some connected cases have been dealt with). It'll be interesting what the outcome is. Armstrong has pointed out that he's never failed a doping test, and the tests were all carried out by the UCI.

I think Armstrong and the UCI are right about the USADA not having the jurisdiction to strip the titles. Yes, they could cause the UCI to be thrown out of the Olympics (because the UCI are forced to comply with world anti-doping rules) or impose other sanctions, but that doesn't mean they have the power to strip titles awarded by a different body, and notably a different body that has never failed Armstrong in a dope test.

This is what is politely referred to as a "parliamentary untruth" on Armstrong's part, but I won't expand on that just now - work y'know.

If Armstrong had decided to defend his corner, then everything would have come out in court, which he is desperate to avoid. It might well come out anyway, especially if the UCI tries to weasel out of its responsibilities. Nothing in Armstrong's personality suggests that he's the sort of person who would just "give up" in the face of a supposed "witch hunt". If he was innocent, he'd have nothing to fear. The accusations against Armstrong include collusion, cover-ups and everything else besides, implicating the UCI. It would not the first time that a sporting body had been directly complicit in not just turning a blind eye to doping, but facilitating it.

Some general commentary: The idea that Armstrong could have won seven tours in a row "clean", ahead of a veritable rogues' gallery of cheats* - strains my credulity well beyond breaking point.

*See the above graphic.

I'm not saying the USADA are wrong about the doping. I'd rather wait and see what the evidence actually consists of. But, I do think they don't have the jurisdiction to actually strip Armstrong of awards they didn't present him.

[cowiz]

The USADA have said they'll release the evidence in due course (once some connected cases have been dealt with). It'll be interesting what the outcome is. Armstrong has pointed out that he's never failed a doping test, and the tests were all carried out by the UCI.

I think Armstrong and the UCI are right about the USADA not having the jurisdiction to strip the titles. Yes, they could cause the UCI to be thrown out of the Olympics (because the UCI are forced to comply with world anti-doping rules) or impose other sanctions, but that doesn't mean they have the power to strip titles awarded by a different body, and notably a different body that has never failed Armstrong in a dope test.

This is what is politely referred to as a "parliamentary untruth" on Armstrong's part, but I won't expand on that just now - work y'know.

If Armstrong had decided to defend his corner, then everything would have come out in court, which he is desperate to avoid. It might well come out anyway, especially if the UCI tries to weasel out of its responsibilities. Nothing in Armstrong's personality suggests that he's the sort of person who would just "give up" in the face of a supposed "witch hunt". If he was innocent, he'd have nothing to fear. The accusations against Armstrong include collusion, cover-ups and everything else besides, implicating the UCI. It would not the first time that a sporting body had been directly complicit in not just turning a blind eye to doping, but facilitating it.

Some general commentary: The idea that Armstrong could have won seven tours in a row "clean", ahead of a veritable rogues' gallery of cheats* - strains my credulity well beyond breaking point.

*See the above graphic.

I'm not saying the USADA are wrong about the doping. I'd rather wait and see what the evidence actually consists of. But, I do think they don't have the jurisdiction to actually strip Armstrong of awards they didn't present him.

The man walked on the fucking moon, give him a break!

[Pappa]

No, that was Neil Young.

[cowiz]

No, that was Neil Young.

In his spaceship the Heart of Gold

[klr]

From earlier today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19433990

Lance Armstrong- Usada will reveal doping evidence

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (Usada) is preparing to reveal its evidence against Lance Armstrong.

Usada has banned the American cyclist for life, stripping him of his record-breaking seven Tour de France titles.

The move followed Armstrong's refusal to answer charges that he was the "ring-leader" of a doping conspiracy.

Armstrong says he is innocent and that only the sport's governing body, the International Cycling Union (UCI), has the power to sanction him.

With the UCI giving the impression that it agrees with Armstrong, Usada is under pressure to provide more details of its case.

The BBC understands Usada would have done so already but for two reasons:

Armstrong was charged along with three doctors, a coach, and US Postal team manager Johan Bruyneel in June - and proceedings are continuing against three of them;
The agency has been concerned that its witnesses have to be protected from outside influence.

But Usada is aware of the need to counter Armstrong's claims it has gone beyond its jurisdiction with an investigation that is an "unconstitutional witch hunt", based on "corrupt inducements" to other riders.

The Colorado-based agency is not overly concerned with his attacks, but realises it must do more to convince a divided public it has compelling, and ultimately damning, evidence against one of the world's most famous sportsmen.

The bulk of that evidence is testimony from at least a dozen of his former team-mates and associates, but it is not, as has been reported, evidence gathered during the federal investigation into allegations of systematic doping at the US Postal Service cycling team.

A branch of government, the US Postal Service was the main sponsor of Armstrong's team between 1996 and 2004, a period that covers six of his seven Tour wins.

Using state money to buy performance-enhancing drugs would have been a criminal offence, but it was decided this would be too difficult to prove and the two-year investigation was halted earlier this year.

But Usada has not had access, despite requests, to the evidence the Food and Drug Administration investigators gathered, and has built its own case.

Having weathered Armstrong's attempts to have this case thrown out by a judge, political pressure from one of the rider's supporters in Congress, criticism from sections of the US media, and the UCI's opposition to the process, Usada remains confident its side of the story will convince all but the most ardent of the rider's supporters.

Some of that story will emerge during the public hearings that have been requested by Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya and Pepe Marti, respectively the manager, a doctor and a coach at Armstrong's former teams.

Two other doctors, Michele Ferrari and Luis Garcia del Moral, did not respond to Usada's charges, and were given life bans last month.

Marti was also banned but that was reversed when his lawyers made it clear he wished to fight for his career in sport.

Due to the nature of the charges, elements of the evidence against Armstrong will be aired at that time. But with no date set for the panels to convene, that is unlikely to happen until the end of the year.

However, significant parts of Usada's Armstrong dossier will be made public before those hearings via the media or in communication with the UCI.

Only cycling's governing body can impose the sanctions announced by Usada, but there is precedent for doing so. As a co-signatory of the World Anti-Doping Agency's "Code", the set of anti-doping rules that most sports have followed since 2004, the UCI's room for manoeuvre appears limited.

But this has not stopped the federation from discussing a legal challenge to Usada's ruling with a number of lawyers. This challenge, should it proceed, will be based on jurisdiction and "retrospectivity", the fact the offences go back further than sport's eight-year statute of limitations.

The UCI greeted Usada's decision last week with a terse statement asking for a "reasoned decision" as to why it should apply the sanctions.

Usada is preparing that report now and is confident the statute of limitations does not apply as Armstrong has previously lied under oath when asked about drug-taking.

Armstrong, however, told reporters at a World Cancer Congress event in Montreal this week that he was "not afraid" of any report Usada might send to the UCI.

The rider, who almost died of cancer in 1996, has raised huge sums of money for cancer awareness via his foundation.

Speaking to delegates in Montreal, he said: "My name is Lance Armstrong, I'm a cancer survivor, and yes, I won the Tour de France seven times."

[klr]

Judgement day, part 1 ... USADA starts to release the evidence. 11 of Armstrong's former teammates have testified against him.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/w ... index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cy ... g/1624551/

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usadas- ... oney-trail

... and so on. The full report will be 1,000 pages long.

[rasetsu]

They can, however, declare him a rather impressive side of beef. Or is that the USDA what does that?


It occurs to me, re: Neil and Lance, in life, we all go from zero to hero, why do we worry about going back again. Tide comes in, tide goes out.

Which reminds me. I've got a rant about whining that I've been waiting for an occasion to prompt it being ranted and there hasn't been one, so I'm gonna rant that puppy here. People deride and look down upon people for whining, with phrases like "Shall I call you a wambulance" and "looking for my violin and small cheeses" when there's no real reason for it. (I'm polling Evolutionary psychology, but she's not answering her cell. Have to try back later.) Whining is as natural as crying. I don't know anybody that can live without whining, nor would I want them to try. We tell boys not to cry, and we tell men not to whine. Why? It makes no sense to me. To paraphrase Michael in The Big Chill, "Never underestimate whining. I don't know anyone who can get through a morning without at least a whine or two."

So all you anti-whining cunts, knock it the fuck off.

(Okay. I'm done whining for now.)