Surfer34

I am confused, is there going to be some sort of trial with a prosecutor and judge and are they REAL judges and inside a real courtroom ?

bikepro

It is essentially an arbitration process. If USADA finds Lance guilty and imposes penalties, Lance can appeal the decision to CAS -- Court of Arbitration for Sport.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_o...tion_for_Sport.

They pretty much have the final word. Remember, these are not criminal or even civil proceedings so the standard of proof is not as high.

Shimagnolo

I understand USADA is in negotiations with Judge Judy...

Surfer34

and who sits on that court ? are they government officials or private ? who puts them on the court ?

bikepro

https://www.usada.org/?gclid=CIKs7v7a97ACFcFeTAodqzan8g

From the USADA Website:

Q: What is the Anti-Doping Review Board?

A: The Anti-Doping Review Board is a group of experts independent of USADA with medical, technical and legal knowledge of doping matters. These experts meet to recommend whether there is sufficient evidence of doping or other rule violations to proceed to a hearing.


Lance is at this point now. The review board has reviewed the USADA evidence and ruled there is enough evidence to charge him.

bikerjp

I don't get it. Aren't the blood tests cyclists undergo similar to DNA evidence (as an analogy)? If someone says they saw you commit a crime but the DNA says otherwise you go free. If someone says they saw you dope but you've passed hundreds of blood tests shouldn't that be the end of it? People can be wrong, coerced, etc. The tests should be more or less irrefutable. Just ask Contador. I realize you can probably sneak by a few tests, but hundreds? Seems like a witch hunt to me.

Surfer34

Hmmm, I dont like the sound of that. The constitution sought a jury of peers, not a jury of supposed experts.

Should be interesting though that the witnesses will have to be made public.

Does Armstrong or his attorneys get to cross examine them ?

guadzilla

Of course it seems like a witch hunt to you. If you were to take an objective look at the reality of doping in cycling, and how few people actually get caught via testing, you'd realize how absurd your statement above ("he didn't fail a dope test, so he must be innocent") is. But that isn't how you are approaching it - you just want Lance to be innocent, and are looking for ways to pick holes with anyone or anything that suggests otherwise.

Basso didn't fail a dope test. Valverde didn't fail a dope test. Riis didn't fail a dope test. And ironically, the CAS felt that Contador's positive was due to a contaminated supplement, and not deliberate doping.

Let's clean up cycling, except when it involves our heroes. Cos you know, USADA is so biased (Marion Jones, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds all agree with you)

This is not a trial under the US legal system. This is an arbitration panel to determine whether he cheated while playing a particular sport or not. The outcome of this is going to affect his sporting career, and not put him in jail.

The US constitution doesn't define the code of sporting conduct or how it is enforced.

I don't know what I am enjoying more - watching the House of Lies come crashing down, or the amazing twists of logic put forth by the Lance Fans to defend their hero.

bikerjp

Where did you dig that up from? I don't want Lance to be innocent. I don't think I really care, although I do think it's a waste of time/money at this point. My original question still stands. How can you continually pass tests but be charged based only only witnesses (with some being somewhat questionable at best). I realize people who dope do manage to pass, but hundreds and every time? You'd think that it would pretty unlikely to never have any physical evidence surface after so many years and so many tests, etc.

As I'm a fairly new follower of cycling, I didn't know Basso, Valverde, Riis had been suspended. Was it based solely on witness testimony or did they have other physical evidence? In the absence of any physical evidence, isn't it all just hearsay.

Edit: okay, did a bit of research. Basso admitted to "attempted doping" and Valverde was linked via DNA evidence both stemming from Operation Puerto. Riis had high hematocrit levels and later admitted to doping. These seem different from Lance's case where he didn't admit anything and there is no physical evidence - that I've heard of anyway.

Picchio Special

Yes, hundreds of times. Dopers have always been ahead of testers. Marion Jones passed hundreds of tests, and later admitted she had been doping for years. Look at how many guys caught for doping admit they'd actually been doping for a long time - indicating they passed hundreds of tests before being caught.
Here's the thing you're missing: Pantani never failed a dope test. But if you look at his blood data, it's obvious he doped in a very sophisticated way for years and years. There's very little - if any- genuine doubt about it. Matt Rendell makes what amounts to a slam-dunk case in his book about Pantani. You should read it. I believe USADA has evidence based on Lance's blood parameters that is every bit as damning as a positive test itself. It's not hard for an expert to look at a range of blood test paremeters and tell quite easily whether the person that blood came from doped, with very little room for dispute.
Riis admitted he doped, by the way.
The "never caught" argument that keeps being thrown up in defense of Lance is really thin, if you understand how doping in sports really works, and the ease with which many athletes have beaten the system for years.
Also, your point about the consitution calling for a jury of peers glaringly misses the point that "expert juries" have been used in complex civil cases for years, with increasing importance.

reef58

In all fairness Basso and Riis pretty much confessed.

I am not really one that thinks the sport needs to be cleaned up. I think there needs to be oversight, which keeps the doping somewhat under the radar. I really don't care if they dope as long as they are all doping, or none doping. I don't think it is fair in between.

bikerjp

Thanks for the additional info. Although I wasn't the one making a point about expert juries.

The blood paramaters would be the physical evidence I'd hope to see. However, I believe Lance claimed that his parameters had always been consistent (maybe because he consistently doped). All I've heard about this case so far is that it was based on witness testimony and not any actual evidence. If they have evidence too then great (well not for Lance). That's all I was asking about. I guess time will tell.

Picchio Special

Apologies on the expert juries point - my bad for jumping in late.
from what I've read, USADA will be attempting to prove manipulation of Lance's blood parameters by illicit means, even in the absence of a positive test.
I always though it was a red flag when Lance - shortly after the start of his last comeback - discontinued working with the anti-doping expert who he had agreed to be monitored by in order to demonstrate that he was clean.
BTW, there was also this story: https://velonews.competitor.com/2005/...n-99-tour_8740

That was the point that I went from believing Lance may well have been clean to believing he doped. It wasn't an easy step for me to take. The defense raised on Lance's behalf - that the samples were supposed to be anonymous, that there was no B-sample confirmation, that French labs had it in for Armstrong - may indeed have been more than enough to prevent an actual doping case or sanction. But I found the defense frankly pretty weak, and from that point on, Lance was guilty in the court of my personal opinion. Which may not be "official" or part of a sanctioned legal or administrative body or process, but which is plenty important to me.

bikerjp

So, let's say they have evidence and he is found guilty. They will strip him of his TdF wins and 2nd place moves up. However, I recall seeing a chart (can't find it now) that showed that in pretty much all of his wins, he beat other known/suspected dopers. So they remove one known doper winner and pass the title to the next doper? Who is the closest clean cyclist in each of his wins?

Picchio Special

This is indeed one of the dilemmas. Making Zulle or Ullrich or Basso the de fact winner seems ridiculous. No one knows who the closest clean cyclist was - probably no one in the top 10 on GC. I think they should either leave those titles vacant, or issue some kind of blanket amnesty on the grounds that the whole era stinks to high heaven, just as the whole Indurain era did (actually even worse, since there are documented 60+ haematocrits from guys in the early-mid 90's, when EPO entered the peloton in a big way).
Or, they could just give a whole bunch of Tour titles to Charly Mottet.

guadzilla

My apologies, if so. It seems that the typical response from Lance Fans is that "oh no, my hero cannot be guilty, therefore the other party has to be wrong" and then they go looking for ways to prove that.

If I lumped you in that category, I apologize.

You only need to figure out how to beat the system once. Then, as long as the testing protocols remain the same, you keep beating it. Ferrari's popularity seems to stem from 2 things: 1/ He really knows his stuff as far as training goes and 2/ His doping protocols seem to be ahead of the testing protocols.

Then look at the dodgy stuff involved with the UCI. Lance donates money to them and they accept - and after much hemming and hawing and denials, McQuaid admits it and says "in hindsight, it was perhaps a bad idea". Perhaps? PERHAPS? Anyone with half a brain can tell you that this is called a "conflict of interest".

As for never testing positive: David Walsh's book indicates that Lance's 1999 blood sample tested positive for EPO but it was covered up. Lance also tested positive for some steroid but later got a Therapeutic Use Exception for it ("I forgot to hand it in". Sure). Landis has also claimed that Lance failed a test but the UCI covered it up.

Given that the UCI doesn't really seem to be independent here (McQuaid's reaction when the Novitzky case was closed: "Oh thank god it is over, we can move on" while USADA's response "Hmm, let's see what doping evidence turned up in that misuse-of-public-funds case").

Why I think that the Lance-Bruyneel case needs to be investigated: it isn't simply a case of one rider doping in private. It might be a case of organized, team-wide, systematic doping that might have involved members of the UCI. The systematic/organized aspect of it makes it worth investigating, if we are going to have a clean sport - especially given that some of the principals involved are still in cycling.

I honestly think Lance earned his 7 TdF wins, doping or no. But it helps the credibility of the sport and the clean-riding effort if the big fish are also caught - it shows that no one can get away by breaking the rules. To me, that is a very worthwhile endeavor.

The point is, none of these guys failed a drug test either.

Cycling rules have different standards from civil and criminal law - for better or for worse, cycling deals very harshly with doping offenders. Multiple, credible witness accounts are enough to suspend a rider. Which is why Basso and Valverde were busted for being "associated" with a doping doctor. Which is why Contador was given the full 2 years when even the CAS felt that his positive test was likely due to contaminated supplement.

And USADA is filing charges now b/c it feels it has "credible evidence" that Lance doped all the way until 2010. So there appears to be some evidence- and I am guessing that the Grand Jury testimony of guys like Hincapie and Tyler Hamilton is going to play a big role there.

bikerjp

^^Thanks. That's the info I didn't really have. Curious to see what they really have and how it plays out. Still think it would be silly to strip him of titles when there isn't really anyone to pass them too who isn't also suspect.

Mossy Stone

I guess going forward they are going to have to wait 25 years before they declare any new winners winners.

himespau 

Yeah, this is always my hanging point. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure he doped, but beat a field of dopers, so either he was getting better drugs or was just able to out-compete, and, if that's the case, he earned what he got.

On the other hand, he's come off as a real dick since then and lost a lot of my sympathy and I'd sort of like to see him get justice served to him (not that that's worth anything).

That, and I'd like to see the sport cleaned up and that requires a major housecleaning.

But he did accomplish an impressive feat, and do we really have to tear down all the heroes to clean up the sport? Will the housecleaning required mean that americans care even less about it than they do now?

Tough questions.

Picchio Special

Americans don't deal well with gray area, generally. They tend to demand that the world neatly sort itself into heros and villians. Tough beans for them that it doesn't. Most people have good and bad in them, and often the brightest lights cast the darkest shadows. Folks just have a hard time wrapping their brains around the fact that Lance was both a great champion and a cheater who went after his enemies with ruthless tactics. Both are true of the very same human, yet it's difficult for people to reconcile those things. Life is messy, and so is sports, despite continued attempts to project it and believe in it as some kind of extra-human realm.

Paul Barnard

You want him to come up with a new truth?

SwampDude

When you distill all of this down, it seems the panel of experts will have to come up with more than theoretical violations to strip the guy of TdF wins. There must be some standard of evidence that applies in such cases, based on precedent or established rules. I know we're not talking about the judicial system, but it seems due process in some form would apply.

I'm not an Armstrong fan or a hater. I just get uncomfortable when the sentiment seems to be guilty until proven innocent. Or, everybody else did it, so he must have done it. Saying he is guilty because of the absence of compelling proof of innocence seems like pretty flimsy grounds for stripping away the victories.

Shimagnolo

I got curious from reading a comment about all but one of the 2nd & 3rd place finishers in LA's 7 TdF wins being caught in their own scandals. This is what I pulled from Wikipedia:

1999
2 Alex Zülle - EPO - Festina
3 Fernando Escartín - NO ALLEGATIONS

2000
2 Jan Ullrich - Operación Puerto
3 Joseba Beloki - Operación Puerto - later cleared by Spanish officials

2001
2 Jan Ullrich - Operación Puerto
3 Joseba Beloki - Operación Puerto - later cleared by Spanish officials

2002
2 Joseba Beloki - Operación Puerto - later cleared by Spanish officials
3 Raimondas Rumšas - EPO

2003
2 Jan Ullrich - Operación Puerto
3 Alexander Vinokourov - blood doping

2004
2 Andreas Klöden - blood doping
3 Ivan Basso - Operación Puerto

2005
2 Ivan Basso - Operación Puerto
(3 DQ'd) Jan Ullrich - Operación Puerto
3 Francisco Mancebo - Operación Puerto

himespau 

Well, if Spanish officials can be trusted (and recent events may cast a doubt on that), Joseba Beloki might find himself a happy man.

fly:yes/land:no