Professional Dopers - Forum Archive

Aug 17, 2012 at 02:30 PM

Ian,

Maybe this will be more to the point:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/87086-androgel-dangers/

As for touching the shoulders, that probably means that it gets absorbed by clothing as well as skin. Some parents have been known to pick up their kids and kids have been known to rest their heads on a parent's shoulder.

vlad

Aug 17, 2012 at 05:20 PM

this is great:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis/instantmessage.html

mugwump

Aug 17, 2012 at 05:33 PM

it's also in From Lance to Landis.

Jules

Aug 21, 2012 at 02:30 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/20/sport/lance-armstrong-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

I'm too tired to dig up the original but these quotes are great:

"If these bodies wish to damage the image of their sport through bitter infighting, they will have to do so without the involvement of the United States courts,"

and

In his ruling, Judge Sparks ruled that Armstrong's assertions that he unfairly didn't have the right to due process "fail as a matter of law, and must be dismissed."

Joaquin

Aug 21, 2012 at 03:38 AM

Re the Armstrong dismissal: the whole "due process" argument has always been weird to me. It conflates constitutional rights with private agreement. Being a licensed professional cyclist is like being a licensed professional of any sort - you are subject to the privately imposed ethical rules of your profession. The disciplinary hearing held by the USADA is much more akin to a disciplinary action against a doctor or lawyer facing accusations of ethical violations than it is to a criminal or civil case.

mugwump

Aug 21, 2012 at 01:49 PM

What's weird about Armstrong trying to manipulate public opinion?

I think the judge's first dismissal back in June got to the heart of the Armstrong legal defense team's strategy;they were interested mainly in a public relations stunt.

mperlberg

Aug 23, 2012 at 11:26 AM

so MLB is apparently actually testing!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/sports/baseball/baseball-bartolo-colon-suspended-failed-drug-test.html?_r=1&ref=sports

Jules

Aug 24, 2012 at 02:13 AM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CYC_ARMSTRONG_DOPING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-23-21-52-08

Adam

Aug 24, 2012 at 01:36 PM

This Armstrong stuff is total and utter bullshit. I can't believe the crap USADA are trying to pull here. I mean, if someone said this to you, I think you'd tell them to fuck off too; "We have 15 years of evidence of crimes you committed. We will not show you the evidence. We are actually not even the governing body responsible for this investigation under international rules. But, you can either not fight the evidence we have not shown you but insist is very good, or enter 'arbitration' [WTF is that???] to fight against the evidence we have not shown you in our illegitimate 'court'."

I am neither pro nor anti Armstrong but I am definitely anti kangaroo courts. I would rather a cheat got away with it abiding by the governing rules of justice/fairness than the rules were broken in order to catch the cheat. We all know cyclists have/do cheat. No surprise. What we didn't know is that the sports justice was so whimsical and flimsy that it can be bypassed and become irrelevant. That is something worth fighting against. If the sports justice system is that weak it will be powerless to protect riders who need its support, and easy for others to manipulate it.

Rant over.

mugwump

Aug 24, 2012 at 01:57 PM

Adam,

Reference Joaquin's comments above. Armstrong agreed to this system. That he denounces it now is nothing more than buyer's remorse.

I don't see the kangaroo courts aspect you write of. Armstrong could fight this and he chose not to. If he fought it, maybe we'd get to see the whether or not the system works. As it is, Armstrong is trying to make the system irrelevant. And that's bad for everybody.

eragot

Aug 24, 2012 at 02:15 PM

@Adam - arbitration is a very well accepted, understood and valid process. Adjudication in a court versus the AAA is very similar. The difference is that the AAA procedures tend to be more streamlined and efficient for all parties involved. Due process isn't revoked or lost, but it is in fact preserved. Of course, arbitration is an contracted for dispute resolution system. So, when you bargain for it, you get it. You then can't simply change the contract by running to court as Armstrong tried to do.

Armstrong agreed to the process.

mugwump

Aug 24, 2012 at 02:34 PM

To Armsrtrong, a fair fight is one he's sure he can win.

Jeffrey White

Aug 24, 2012 at 03:07 PM

To say that Armstrong has a case of buyer's remorse is a bit harsh, I think. A truly world-class athlete will not simply walk away from his beloved sport over some fine print about arbitration. Everyone knows that fine print is only so binding, and for very good reason.

I'm with Adam. No one has seen a shred of evidence -- apparently not even LA or his defense team. I'm sorry, but that stinks to high heaven.

eragot

Aug 24, 2012 at 03:28 PM

It's not fine print. And fine print is binding - especially when you have counsel.

jfogden

Aug 24, 2012 at 04:34 PM

To me this just seems like blackmail, what 'evidence' they mention is heresay or circumstantial. They don't have syringes or bags, they dont have a positive test, they dont even say (anymore) they have testing indicative of doping. Ive mentioned before there are too many holes in the system legal and scientific but this is silly. It's like they wanted to go to arbitration in the hope that 'something will come to light'

Read TFA

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-bans-armstrong-for-life-disqualifies-all-results-since-august-1-1988

Yes I want the cheats to get caught and no Im not an LA fanboi but if they say they have evidence going back to 1998 - why did they sit on it? Why wait until 2012 to say "we have evidence that you doped in 2009"? All that means to me is that you weren't doing your job for three years. If all it takes is a couple riders, convicted cheats or not, coming forward to say "this guy doped and gave us dope too" to find you 'guilty' - I say thats fucked up.

Find it in the blood or quit wasting time and money on testing

dstokes

Aug 24, 2012 at 04:42 PM

Comments on the NYTimes article are interesting. Presumably a cross-section of the general population. There is a lot of support for LA and a lot of outrage about lack of evidence.

But it seems to me that evidence is produced at trial, or in this case arbitration. I'm not sure we have a right to see the evidence before hand. Not sure whether the defendant does or not. Apparently Judge Sparks things not.

The negative drug tests are only one form of evidence. Testimony is certainly another valid form of evidence. Surely one would like to recover stolen goods in the case of a robbery and use them as evidence. But if instead a bunch of people say they saw the thief take the goods, then I think a conviction would still be valid.

We may get to hear the testimony yet as Johan B. is up next and UCI may well challenge the whole process. Who knows, maybe like Richard III, LA will wake up from a bad dream and reflect upon his deeds:

I did but dream.
O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!
The lights burn blue. It is now dead midnight.
Cold fearful drops stand on my trembling flesh.
What do I fear? myself? there's none else by:
Richard loves Richard; that is, I am I.
Is there a murderer here? No. Yes, I am:
Then fly. What, from myself? Great reason why:
Lest I revenge. What, myself upon myself?
Alack. I love myself. Wherefore? for any good
That I myself have done unto myself?
O, no! alas, I rather hate myself
For hateful deeds committed by myself!
I am a villain: yet I lie. I am not.
Fool, of thyself speak well: fool, do not flatter.
My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale,
And every tale condemns me for a villain.
Perjury, perjury, in the high'st degree
Murder, stem murder, in the direst degree;
All several sins, all used in each degree,
Throng to the bar, crying all, Guilty! guilty!
I shall despair. There is no creature loves me;
And if I die, no soul shall pity me:
Nay, wherefore should they, since that I myself
Find in myself no pity to myself?
Methought the souls of all that I had murder'd
Came to my tent; and every one did threat
To-morrow's vengeance on the head of Richard.

jfogden

Aug 24, 2012 at 04:54 PM

I thought someone would try to use the "chewbaca defense" but not the "shakespeare monologue"!

Humor aside - I don't think you can get convicted of burglary on witness testimony - I was a witness in a trial and the perps walked because the police didn't find any burglarized items in their possession. I saw them in the house and called the police who caught them several blocks away, items were missing but they stashed them. They walked. So no, you cannot get a conviction on eyewitness testimony alone. Like I said read TFA:

The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong is being sanctioned are:

(1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and masking agents.

(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and corticosteroids.

(4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone, and cortisone.

(5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.

I don't see any blood work or evidence beyond witness testimony - my guess is that LA wants the UCI to go to CAS for him due to lack of physical evidence, its a waste of money

Ryan J

Aug 24, 2012 at 05:09 PM

Does anyone actually believe he's innocent?

Even if I think the process is BS, I have a hard time giving a shit. Seems to me that whether its a personal vendetta or not it's almost entirely certain he was at the center of one of the biggest deceptions in the history of sport. He's a liar, a bully, and a thug who has sought to ruin the lives of people who are just telling the truth including admitting their own guilt.

Other athletes have suffered wins stripped and lifetime bans for less. I say screw him and move on.

Ros Knopov

Aug 24, 2012 at 05:21 PM

Does anyone actually believe he's innocent?

Even if I think the process is BS, I have a hard time giving a shit. Seems to me that whether its a personal vendetta or not it's almost entirely certain he was at the center of one of the biggest deceptions in the history of sport. He's a liar, a bully, and a thug who has sought to ruin the lives of people who are just telling the truth including admitting their own guilt.

Other athletes have suffered wins stripped and lifetime bans for less. I say screw him and move on.

+1

twoyacks

Aug 24, 2012 at 05:21 PM

Ryan...I like your response. People hardly ever mention the money making machine that is Lance Armstrong. I am not talking about Livestrong, I am talking about corporate L.A. The ammount of money he personally made based on a spicey combination of cancer survivorship and doped up tour wins is well over $100 million. Money he has personally made through his fraud...money in his personal bank accounts. Money he would not have if he didn't take ped's. I am talking about money Lance Armstrong uses for Aspen houses and private jets. His personal fortune. Nobody talks about this...ever. Its always Ooohhh look how much good he has done. They are seperate arguments. I'm sorry they are. Is the message then cheat all you want....as long as you raise $$$$ for charity? If so the hedge fund managers are off the front...

dstearns

Aug 24, 2012 at 05:25 PM

You can be convicted of burglary without possessing any of the stolen goods. In New York, first degree burglary is the act of "knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a dwelling with intent to commit a crime therein, and when, in effecting entry or while in the dwelling or in immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: 1) is armed with deadly weapons 2) causes physical injuries 3) uses or threatens to use a deadly instrument or 4) displays weapons...

Larceny and theft is a whole different law. If they didn't get convicted of burglary, specifically, it's not because the stolen goods weren't found in their possession. Maybe the prosecution f'ed up, or there was other evidence that the jury heard and caused a reasonable doubt.

I think testimony of witnesses is perfectly legit evidence to convict (or in this case, ban) someone.

I don't know if Lance is guilty. My gut instinct tells me he is. I've never been a fan of his, regardless of all this, so perhaps that's just my bias showing. But whatever. I'd rather be out riding my bike.

Anyone watching the Vuelta?

Ryan J

Aug 24, 2012 at 05:31 PM

Right Yacks - and don't forget that his famous non-profit donates almost nothing to scientific research. They raise awareness, which happens mainly by nurturing Lance's image as a hero.

mugwump

Aug 24, 2012 at 05:48 PM

If it's impossible to know what evidence USADA has, maybe they do have blood bags, receipts, photo evidence, longitudinal profiles that show doping, etc.

If none of this stuff existed, then Armstrong could claim circumstantial evidence, bribed witnesses, etc, and at least the public would side with him and he'd have a reasonable claim on blaming the system.

Jeff Owens

Aug 24, 2012 at 06:12 PM

Livestrong gear officially became badass now. When we was revered as clean, it was too mainstream. Now it's like those hipsters and their Pantani tshirts. Drugs = cool, duh! If Lance gets some tats, I'm buying full mellow johnny's kit.

But seriously, who gives a fuck about celebrities? I don't buy the "it's sending a message". Whatever. Maybe the bigger problem is worshipping people you don't know. And they're all still doping. This only proves that the testing sucks. Let's test NFL realistically and see 98% of them fail. Oh, USADA doesn't wanna spend millions chasing down every player that played in MLB, NFL, Tennis, NBA, etc over the last 20 years? It's a joke and I don't even like the guy. Why not spend all those funds on something that actually matters: healthcare, starving children, prosecuting financial crimes and war criminals, etc. So many of these guys, like Tygart and Novitzky and just self-seving, sanctimonious hypocrites looking out for their own standing. Dude rode a bike pretty fast for a while. Big whoop. It's a numbing distraction.

Jules

Aug 24, 2012 at 07:07 PM

I thought the jurisdiction issue was settled: Armstrong both agreed to it and CITED it when it suited him in the tailwind lawsuit. Apparently if he has money to make it's USADA's territory, if he has money to lose USADA is a "rogue" institution.

As for the evidence; the purpose of the hearing was to review it in a public forum; from which LA had right to appeal, for what it's worth. Given his wide influence in the sport and demonstrated ability to harm eye witnesses that testify against him it is perfectly reasonable (and with the legality of the process) to keep them nameless *until the hearing*

Calling the process "blackmail" or "Kangaroo court" misses the mark; the process (like it or not) is externally audited, transparent and OPEN TO APPEAL; none of the characteristics of blackmail or phony courts.

LA doesn't seem like a nice person, but villain or saint I don't condone "any means necessary." In this case the means were legal enough in the law of our land, and according to the mess that is international jurisdiction.

Yes, we could spent the money on orphans and free dental care for left-handed red-headed dentists, but that argument rings hollow to me. Congress created USADA and funded it to do what it is doing. You could levy the same argument against *any* publicly funded effort to the same result.

I think the LA Era was a watershed in terms of both sophistication of cheating and of the money involved in the sport at large. Putting a nail in it is a worthy cause within the microcosm that is pro and wannabe pro cycling. Would you prefer a WWF style sport-mer-tainment?

Interestingly the LA camp has basically lofted the "I don't care what a piece of paper says" argument (College's facebook as an example) which is pretty outlandish when the paper in question is a legally binding contract. In what other sphere would that kind of statement be acceptable behavior?

Jeffrey White

Aug 24, 2012 at 08:12 PM

The majority of the testimony was rumored to have been from individuals who were coerced into giving it, and probably received some kind of amnesty deal in return. For what it's worth, I don't think Lance Armstrong is innocent of doping. But that is completely beside the point. The cycling governing bodies are dirtier than any single rider.

Jeff Owens

Aug 24, 2012 at 08:51 PM

I guess what rings hollow to me is the belief in a purity of the process and the parties involved. Congress, USADA, these systems or even our own motivations. It's just so black/white to point at a few individuals and say "looky here, bad bad man" while turning your head to the 95% of the guys that were doing it. It's just another show. You can't pretend we don't live in a world of limited resources that should allocated to the places in which they would do the most good (hunger, ending war, clean energy, etc) for the most people. Going after retired pro-athletes who made the decision to take drugs? Really? It's actually kinda pathetic.

And if we're looking for non-WWE style entertainment or meaning in ANY professional "sport", then I think we're all being hopelessly naive and misguided.

People were doping for decades before LA (Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, anyone?), and will continue to. Why don't we go after them as well? They have statements, witnesses, etc. Why do cyclists appear to be doing it less now? B/c they are afraid that THEY will get caught, not b/c some guy did it 15 years ago. It's all so ridiculous, which again, is why it's about as entertaining as WWE.

hehe, Ryan told me to get a yellow Livestrong bracelet tattooed on my wrist. Who else is in?!?!?!

mugwump

Aug 24, 2012 at 08:56 PM

Rumored testimony? Really? Why are you making assumptions based on rumors?

Let's assume that there is testimony. It's pretty easy to discredit testimony from people who were offered a deal. I think Armstrong would savor the chance to have these individuals exposed. Lance is a guy who picks fights on twitter and never stops trying to beat up on his perceived enemies.

What if there's other stuff? If he's been doping since 1998, there is a huge trail to hide. The doper only has to make one mistake that the authorities caught. Maybe Floyd took a picture. Maybe Tyler has a receipt. Maybe George has an e.mail or an IM. And maybe Lance knows they have something.

Jeff Owens

Aug 24, 2012 at 09:01 PM

To be clear: I think LA is probably a dick (never met him) and while he may have been good for the popularity of the sport and it's wider acceptance in American culture, and helped create investment into cycling engineering (of which we're all benefiting, some would argue), I honestly don't care if he gets his titles stripped.

Will someone hit the "awesome" button on everything I type about this please?

http://rittecycles.com/lance-armstrong/

JohnMalcolmson

Aug 24, 2012 at 09:21 PM

I'm no branding expert, but how would we feel about:

Live Strong

I like how it dials it down a notch.