Armstrong tests positive?

[Frumious B.]

I don't understand how that works. No idea at all.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Has anyone at ASO confirmed that he will be strippd of his tours? Surely it's them zho get to decide, no? I've just been assuming it was part of the Armstrong spin.

I think that the doping agencies can strip results as well as suspend riders. They stripped Contador of a year and a bit's worth of wins and I certainly don't remember them having to go around to every race organiser to arrange that.

Apparently, the accused can opt for private arbitration by the way, so we may not have the joy of watching every big name American cyclist of his generation testify.

 

[The Boy]

I think that the doping agencies can strip results as well as suspend riders. They stripped Contador of a year and a bit's worth of wins and I certainly don't remember them having to go around to every race organiser to arrange that.

Apparently, the accused can opt for private arbitration by the way, so we may not have the joy of watching every big name American cyclist of his generation testify.

Fair enough. I thought it was the UCI who did the stripping of titles. But thinking about it organisers are probably signed up to the WADA rules in the same way as UCI et al.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Fair enough. I thought it was the UCI who did the stripping of titles.

I could be wrong, I'm just going by my slightly fuzzy memories of Contador's case.

 

[The Boy]

I could be wrong, I'm just going by my slightly fuzzy memories of Contador's case.

Nah, I think you're right. As you say, they won't have arrnged stripping all of Bertie's titles individully.

 

[Frumious B.]

I read something a bit different on a US forum: "USADA can decide whatever they want but ASO decides if he gets to keep his Tour titles. Riis confessed, had his pulled then had it returned."

Whatever...it's all a bit academic at the moment.

 

[Frumious B.]

Yet another tough day at the office for McQuaid www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation

I'm reading the unedited transcript of a long Landis-Kimmage interview. Fascinating stuff - I don't see how Landis could have made it up, especially when he's face to face with Kimmage. http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

Somebody has to make a film about all this. It could be like The Insider x 10.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Armstrong has announced that he won't take the USADA case to arbitration. This means he isn't contesting the charges, and life time ban and the stripping of some or all of his Tour wins will almost inevitably follow.

It's not clear yet whether Bruyneel or the other accused have opted for arbitration. And there are lots other issues still to be settled. Armstrong's lawyers have indicated that they may return to the courts if (when) USADA actually sanctions him. There's also the fate of the various USADA witnesses, many of whom have likely admitted to doping offences. And there's also the UCI which, as usual, can be expected to meddle.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-23/Armstrong-doping-charges/57258616/1

 

[Nigel Irritable]

And USADA have just said that they will indeed ban him for life and strip his Tour wins.

 

[twentythreedom]

Wouldn't UCI have that decision? or TDF itself? French federation? not USADA though, surely?

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Wouldn't UCI have that decision? or TDF itself? French federation? not USADA though, surely?

Tygart is being quoted as saying that USADA have the authority and will do it. I'm still not clear on the exact mechanism of how the removal of wins takes place. It may be that some other organisation does it but only as a formality, or it may be that USADA and some other body will get down to some serious bickering. It will be interesting to see the responses of the UCI and ASO.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

Shane Stokes has an interview with Travis Tygart up on Velonation:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-1st-1998-will-be-stripped.aspx#ixzz24RAAqdjl​

The key parts:
VN: It was said before that the likely sanctions would be a lifetime ban and the loss of seven Tour titles – will that be the case?

TT: Yes…the charges were not contested, so what automatically goes into place will be a lifetime ban from any participation from any sport which recognises the WADA Code and disqualification from all results, including ant Tour de France victories, any other victories and placings beginning August 1st 1998 to the present.

VN: Armstrong’s lawyers have said in a letter to USADA that USADA can’t impose these sanctions, and have threatened legal action if they go through. Do you have any concerns about that?

TT: No, they have already taken legal action and the federal judge told them we do have authority and our process is the process where those complaints can be made. It is kind of funny that they walking away from a process, but are threatening to attempt to go back to somewhere else to fight. It is a little ironic but, no…it means nothing.​

VN: There was reportedly a lot of evidence in the case, there was witness testimony and presumably more…do you expect any of those details to emerge?

TT: Yes, absolutely…at the right time. Obviously there are other cases that are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Their cases are still proceeding, so it will be in due course.

VN: So there is no impediment to USADA releasing the evidence?

TT: No, no.

 

[The Boy]

Shame that they didn't contest. A public trial with all the evidence out in the open would have ended it once and for all.

 

[ExtraRefined]

Would be a very odd state of affairs for the historical tour results if Armstrong's wins really are removed; in 2000, 2001 and 2003 the GC runner up was Jan Ulrich, who'd then apparently take those wins, giving him 4 in total putting him amongst the best tour performers. The only problem is he too was banned for doping retrospectively, but only his later results were revoked. It wouldn't seem very equitable if that was allowed to happen.

 

[tommers]

What a mess. Really bad for cycling and just sad really.

 

[Ted Striker]

Shame that they didn't contest. A public trial with all the evidence out in the open would have ended it once and for all.

My boss here (who's into all that (cycling, not drugs)) thinks it's a brilliant move.

In short (his theory is/was) that the Lance vs USADA case would be based on here-say and testaments of known dopers. However, if they strip him of any titles etc, he can then sue the shit out of them for damage to character/reputation/loss of earnings, of which would need to be proven in a proper court with a higher basis on hard evidence.

(not sure if this is obvious or much discussed already).

To me it smacks of their testing (through his career) being worthless if they couldn't catch him at the time.

 

[The Boy]

My boss here (who's into all that (cycling, not drugs)) thinks it's a brilliant move.

In short (his theory is/was) that the Lance vs USADA case would be based on here-say and testaments of known dopers. However, if they strip him of any titles etc, he can then sue the shit out of them for damage to character/reputation/loss of earnings, of which would need to be proven in a proper court with a higher basis on hard evidence.

(not sure if this is obvious or much discussed already).

To me it smacks of their testing (through his career) being worthless if they couldn't catch him at the time.

Don't see how he could sue. He has been given the chance to respond but has chosen not to. He knew the consequences when doing so. That these things will happen is entirely his choice.

The reason he isn't contesting is so that he and his swivel-eyed sycophants can pretend that he hasn't been found guilty.

As for the testing, there are *always* ways around that. Always have been, always will be. The only function it really serves is to stop their being a free-for-all and to catch out those that are careless. Things are obviously better nowadays with the Biological Passport, but by no means perfect.

 

[The Boy]

Would be a very odd state of affairs for the historical tour results if Armstrong's wins really are removed; in 2000, 2001 and 2003 the GC runner up was Jan Ulrich, who'd then apparently take those wins, giving him 4 in total putting him amongst the best tour performers. The only problem is he too was banned for doping retrospectively, but only his later results were revoked. It wouldn't seem very equitable if that was allowed to happen.

Is there still anybody that takes anything seriously from about 1992 to 2007-ish? The record books only really serve to show how far and badly the sport had fallen as a result of people not asking awkward questions so long as the money kept rolling in.

 

[Ted Striker]

Don't see how he could sue. He has been given the chance to respond but has chosen not to. He knew the consequences when doing so. That these things will happen is entirely his choice.

The reason he isn't contesting is so that he and his swivel-eyed sycophants can pretend that he hasn't been found guilty.

As for the testing, there are *always* ways around that. Always have been, always will be. The only function it really serves is to stop their being a free-for-all and to catch out those that are careless. Things are obviously better nowadays with the Biological Passport, but by no means perfect.

You can sue for (unfounded/unproven) damage to reputation (which this is, in theory)

 

[tommers]

http://gu.com/p/3ax2n

 

[1927]

I dont think it is 100% certain that UCI will strip him of his tour victories, altho someone has already edited wiki!

When Riis admitted doping in 2007 he didnt lose his 1996 victory, well atleast the UCi still consider him the winner! coulkd get very messy indeed, we may have to look who came 3rd on the years won it to find an untainted winner!

 

[The Boy]

You can sue for (unfounded/unproven) damage to reputation (which this is, in theory)

Is it? They've presented an outline of the evidence and asked him if he wants to defend the charges or accept them. By not defending himself against the charges he is accepting both the charges and the punishment.

Or is this the bit where somebody gently explains to me the reasons why I could never be smart enough to be a lawyer?

 

[The Boy]

I dont think it is 100% certain that UCI will strip him of his tour victories, altho someone has already edited wiki!

When Riis admitted doping in 2007 he didnt lose his 1996 victory, well atleast the UCi still consider him the winner! coulkd get very messy indeed, we may have to look who came 3rd on the years won it to find an untainted winner!

That was outside of statute of limitation. USADA are taking the line that it was a single conspiracy ranging from 1998 to 2010 which brings the Tour victories back withing the SOL.

edit: something along those lines anyways.

 

[1927]

Is it? They've presented an outline of the evidence and asked him if he wants to defend the charges or accept them. By not defending himself against the charges he is accepting both the charges and the punishment.

Or is this the bit where somebody gently explains to me the reasons why I could never be smart enough to be a lawyer?

I think Ted is saying the he should have let it go to court as he would be able to dsicredit the witnesses who are themsleves mostly dopers and a lot of evidence would be hears say. That is the basis he is saying he could sue beacuse the evidence would be merely tittle tattle from dopers.

 

[butchersapron]

Matt Seaton has it right today i think:

Yet even a dope cheat still needs to be a master tactician to win the Tour de France: if Armstrong decided to quit the fight it was because this was the least worst option remaining to him. This pre-emptive retreat allows him to avoid the formal process of prosecution and conviction, and the humiliation that would have gone along with that. Perhaps his Livestrong foundation, and what remains of his tarnished brand, can thus survive in some netherworld of unreason.

Thought about ringing my brother as we've argued bitterly over this for a decade plus. Don't feel like 'gloating' though. It's not that sort of thing.

 

[gentlegreen]

Who's next ?
Are these USA samples that were retested ?
Are decades of TDF samples available for retesting ?

 

[butchersapron]

Started this thread exactly 7 years ago today.

 

[Sigmund Fraud]

Is there still anybody that takes anything seriously from about 1992 to 2007-ish? The record books only really serve to show how far and badly the sport had fallen as a result of people not asking awkward questions so long as the money kept rolling in.

At the time we were all taking it seriously - thats the point, its like you just wipe 15 years of competition off the books. Fucking great period to be a clean rider eh?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Good article on Landis, Armstrong, doping and blood transfusions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs=article

 

[twistedAM]

Right let's go after Indurain (not that the Spanish would ever do anything about it) and wipe all the drug machines off the record books.