Lance Armstrong faces doping charges

[bapa]

[bapa]

[adam]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/ ... 57592804/1

Among the book's claims:
• Hamilton, Armstrong and other teammates used sophisticated "hide-and-seek" techniques to avoid testing positive for the banned drugs they used. It says doctor Michele Ferrari was the "smartest" at helping them.

"His solution was dazzlingly simple: instead of injecting EPO (a performance-enhancing drug) subcutaneously… we should inject smaller doses directly into the vein, straight into the bloodstream, where it would still boost our red blood cell count, but leave our body quickly enough to evade detection," the book says.

"If you were careful and paid attention, you could dope and be 99 percent certain that you would not get caught," the book says.

• Hamilton said Ferrari advised Armstrong to sleep in an altitude tent and microdose EPO at "800 units a night" to beat the EPO test, which compared ratios of natural and synthetic EPO. "The altitude tent would create more natural EPO, helping to balance out any synthetic EPO that might linger."

• Armstrong tested positive for cortisone at the Tour de France in 1999 but produced a story that said he had a saddle sore that required a prescription for skin cream. In 2001, Hamilton said Armstrong admitted to him that he tested positive for EPO at the Tour of Switzerland. Hamilton claims Armstrong phoned the president of the International Cycling Union (UCI), cycling's governing body.

"No worries, dude," Armstrong told Hamilton, according to the book. "We're gonna have a meeting with them. It's all taken care of."

In its investigation, USADA noted a cozy relationship between UCI and Armstrong, citing donations of up to $200,000 made to UCI from Armstrong or his company. UCI has denied hiding a positive test.

• Before Hamilton was to testify in a grand jury proceeding about doping in 2010, Hamilton said his attorney received several "urgent calls" from Armstrong's attorneys, "who were offering me their services, for free."

"It was a classic Lance move," the book says. "For six years, he gives me zero support. Now, when things get tough, he wants us on the same team again. No thanks." After Hamilton appeared on 60 Minutes last year, he says Armstrong confronted him at a restaurant in Aspen, Colo.

"How much did 60 Minutes pay you?" Armstrong asked.

Hamilton denied being paid. He says Armstrong responded, "I'm going to make your life a living (expletive) hell."

An attorney for USADA said in court last month that it had concerns about Armstrong's "conduct toward witnesses."

The book cites another incident after former cyclist Greg LeMond said publicly he was "devastated" to learn Armstrong was working with Ferrari, who had a reputation for doping.

"LeMond received a call from Lance shortly after," the book says. "LeMond says that Armstrong was threatening and aggressive, pointing out that LeMond could lose business with Trek,
a Postal sponsor with whom LeMond had a line of bikes. A few weeks later, LeMond issued an awkwardly worded retraction."

Armstrong has accused witnesses of lying about him for personal gain, calling it an "unconstitutional witch hunt." It's why he said he decided not to fight USADA's charges that he used banned drugs and blood transfusions to cheat in cycling. With Armstrong declining arbitration to settle the matter, USADA banned him for life from competition and stripped him of all results since 1998, including his seven Tour de France titles from 1999 to 2005. Two world anti-doping authority and UCI both can review the evidence, but they must either appeal a case Armstrong himself declined to fight or impose the sanctions.

USADA based its case against Armstrong primarily on witnesses. The book says USADA conducted interviews with Hamilton and nine other Armstrong teammates.

"Every Postal rider USADA contacted agreed to speak openly and honestly," the book says.
Their shared tale began before the 1999 Tour de France, when Hamilton met Ferrari. Hamilton asked Armstrong for EPO.

"Lance casually pointed to the fridge," the book says. "I opened it and there, on the door, next to a carton of milk, was a carton of EPO… I was surprised Lance would be so cavalier."
Hamilton writes of dumping used syringes in empty Coke cans and seeing Armstrong getting a blood transfusion. "Through the open door, I could see Lance's sock feet, his arm, the tubing."

Hamilton says he now feels sorry for Armstrong.

"Sorry for him as a person, because he was trapped, imprisoned by all the secrets and lies," the book says. "Lance would sooner die than admit it, but being forced to tell the truth might be the best thing that ever happened to him."

[bapa]

So yet to provide any positive drug tests..........?

[adam]

So yet to provide any positive drug tests..........?

[adam]

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8336 ... n-magazine

There is no murk here, no complication. Just a stark truth: Armstrong sold his public on his name, and when it came time to defend himself with deeds instead of just words, he sold them out.

[adam]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -year.html

'The label said Androstenedione. I looked it up on a laptop computer Armstrong had given me months before.
'I was searching for valid reasons why he would have this substance, a banned steroid.
'There were none. I put it back and did my best to forget about it.
'But I was torn. Should I risk alienating Armstrong and losing my job by calling him out?'

[DOC]

so that positive test...

[adam]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-gregor ... 54300.html

This is the thread I see woven through the Lance Armstrong controversy. There are some people who are absolutely convinced of Armstrong's guilt. To them, Armstrong becomes just the latest in a growing line of disgraced heroes, from Mark McGwire to Barry Bonds to Sammy Sosa to Roger Clemens to Floyd Landis to Bartolo Colón to, well, the list keeps going. To them, Armstrong belongs in this disgraced Cheaters Hall of Shame.

To others, Armstrong's saga is one of an embattled hero fighting impossible odds. His status as athlete extraordinaire is buttressed by his identity as a cancer survivor and philanthropist. Sally Jenkins, in the Washington Post, put it this way, "First of all, Lance Armstrong is a good man. There's nothing that I can learn about him short of murder that would alter my opinion on that." Her opinion is clearly stated in the headline of her piece, "Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA's hypocrisy." As evidence, she presents a quote from the judge in the USADA case, wondering what that agency's real motives were behind their efforts to bring down Armstrong.

Is he innocent? Is he guilty? Perhaps, in that place of reasonable doubt, where a person stands says more about the person passing judgment than it does the person accused. A struggle with doubt is, by necessity, a struggle with faith. In this chapter, that faith is in Lance Armstrong.

[adam]

USADA ’looking forward’ to answering questions on its role after state senators request review

The US Anti-Doping Agency has come out with a strong response to a letter from twenty-three California state senators calling for a comprehensive review of the agency, the anti-doping organisation saying that it provides full rights of due process and pointing to a recent federal court decision verifying that point.

On Tuesday the two dozen state senators asked US senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer to push for an examination of USADA. The letter doesn’t name Lance Armstrong but is almost certainly referring to him, in that it speaks of ‘USADA's unilateral changes in rules for dealing with athletes who have never failed a drug test.’

Armstrong used this claim throughout the US Postal Service investigation, with his PR and legal teams insisting he had passed 500 tests without failing one.

USADA has however queried this number with his lawyers. In addition, the American tested positive for a corticosteroid in 1999, but was not punished due to a doctor’s exemption, later claimed to be backdated. [Editor’s note: retroactive tests carried out in 2005 appeared to show EPO use had occurred in 1999, but the UCI ruled no action could be taken as it said normal testing procedures had not been followed. The USADA case against Armstrong also includes allegations a 2001 positive for EPO was covered up.]

The letter begins by requesting the two senators to ‘call upon the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the appropriate oversight committees of the United States Congress to conduct a comprehensive review of the organisation.’

It continues thus:

The USADA, which receives a majority of its funding from taxpayer dollars through the Office of National Drug Control Policy at the White House, claims to have the power to discipline athletes from all over the world and revoke athletic championships won both in the United States and internationally. Without the authorization of the United States Congress, the USADA has unilaterally changed the rules by which athletes who have never failed a test are prosecuted. Additionally, USADA’s new, self-imposed rules do not provide athletes appropriate due process rights which all other Americans enjoy.

The United States was founded under the fundamental premise that everyone has the due process right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. To that end, we respectfully request that you call upon The Office of National Drug Control Policy and the appropriate oversight committees of the United States Congress to develop appropriate constitutional protections and conduct a comprehensive review of USADA's operations and finances, with special attention to USADA's unilateral changes in rules for dealing with athletes who have never failed a drug test.

It concludes by arguing that:

Rules governing the USADA should be modelled after the United States Constitution, which would never permit a prosecutor to be judge and jury. Additionally, no punitive action of any kind should be taken by USADA unless clear and convincing evidence determines guilt and the athlete is afforded his or her due process rights.

The due process claim is central to the complaint but is one which appears difficult to uphold: in early July Armstrong appealed to a Texas federal courts on these same grounds, but the final ruling there was clear that his argument was not valid.

“On balance, the Court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,” said Judge Sam Sparks in his final ruling on August 20th. He added that having the right to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and then the Swiss courts gave ample opportunity for further consideration.

As regards the argument that ‘no punitive action of any kind should be taken by USADA unless clear and convincing evidence determines guilt,’ the petition to the two senators doesn’t acknowledge that Armstrong himself waived the right to a hearing, thus stopping that process right in its tracks.

Ironically Tim Herman, one of Armstrong’s own lawyers, worked on the USADA rules when they were being drawn up. The agency is a signatory to the WADA code and follows those guidelines.

Response to letter:

Contacted today by VeloNation, USADA insisted that the complaint against it didn’t stack up. “We look forward to answering any question these state representatives have about the Congressionally-mandated process that was approved by athletes, the United States Olympic Committee and all U.S. sport federations,” said its CEO Travis Tygart. “[It] has protected the rights of clean athletes for over a decade, has been used in approximately four hundred cases – twenty percent of which have not involved a traditional positive test -- and which the federal judge, after rejecting Mr. Armstrong's complaints, confirmed provides full Constitutional Due Process to all athletes accused of doping violations."

Armstrong surprised many when on August 23rd he announced he would not fight USADA’s charges against him. It had been made clear to him beforehand that he would face full sanctions if he did not go to arbitration, but he walked away. The following day USADA handed him a lifetime ban and stripped his results from August 1st 1998 onwards.

Both the UCI and WADA have requested a reasoned decision [details of the evidence and the judgement] from USADA, and have a right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. The dossier is currently being compiled and will be presented in the next one to two weeks.

Evidence will also be made public at that time.

As regards the senatorial push, it remains to be seen if it will gain traction or peter out, particularly when the full evidence is released.

Political elements in defence:

Armstrong’s legal team includes several people with political connections, including Bill Clinton’s former White House lawyer Mark Fabiani. He and others came on board when Armstrong was being investigated by federal agents, including BALCO chief investigator Jeff Novitsky.

In February that enquiry was dropped by US Attorney André Birotte Jr. The move stunned federal investigators, who felt they had a strong case and who were given just fifteen minutes’ notice.

USADA then started its own investigation, with different procedures and regulations tied into that. Doping is not currently illegal under US federal law but is banned under the WADA Code and USADA regulations.

In July a spokesman for the New York Democrat José Serrano said that his office was visited by a Livestrong lobbyist, who complained about USADA and the fairness of the process.

Serrano sits on the House Appropriations Committee, which is partly responsible controlling the budget of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which in turn supplies approximately two thirds of USADA’s annual $15 million budget.

Earlier that month, Wisconsin Republican Jim Sensenbrenner protested USADA’s case to the same Office of National Drug Control Policy. His office insisted that it was acting independently of Armstrong’s legal team, although the language of his complaint closely mirrored that used by Armstrong’s legal team in previous documents.

One day later, Republican senator and former presidential candidate John McCain declared his support for USADA, saying that the process was the proper forum to decide matters concerning individual cases of alleged doping violations.

“USADA’s rules and processes, approved by America’s athletes, the United States Olympic Committee and all U.S. sport federations, apply to all athletes regardless of their public profile or success in sport,” he stated.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12804 ... z25dkkBvdc

[adam]

Thinking About Lance Armstrong
Posted: 09/05/2012 12:53 pm

On August 24 Lance Armstrong decided to give up his fight against the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which had accused him of using performance-enhancing drugs during his years of cycling competition, a charge that Armstrong continues to deny. In response to Armstrong's capitulation, USADA stripped him of seven Tour de France titles and annulled his record back to August 1998. In addition USADA banned him from competitive cycling. USADA has sent its dossier to the International Cycling Union (UCI), which will make its own judgment perhaps reaffirming the USADA's decision to strip Armstrong of his titles and ban him from future competitive cycling. To say the least, these accusations and reprisals have tarnished Lance Armstrong's public image.

How will these developments alter Lance Armstrong's public impact?

Consider my indirect relationship to Lance Armstrong. I've never met him, but my brother served as President and CEO of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. During his tenure my brother oversaw the LIVESTRONG-wristband campaign, which, using the celebrity of Lance Armstrong and the potent symbolism Tour de France 'yellow," raised millions of dollars for the Foundation, the central purpose of which is to give aid and encouragement to millions of people who suffer--directly and indirectly--from the ravages of cancer. My brother's association with Lance Armstrong and the Lance Armstrong Foundation made me very proud.

Like more than 10 million cancer patients, I am also connected to Lance Armstrong through our mutual experience of the dreaded disease. I began treatment for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in 2001, six months or so after Armstrong had won his second Tour de France. Could I be like him and make myself strong enough to confront cancer? I didn't know, but reading his book, It's Not About the Bike, and watching clips of his great achievements encouraged me during some of the low points of my cancer treatment program--months of five-hour chemotherapy and immunotherapy sessions as well as bouts of fatigue, bone and joint pain, numbness in the extremities and other debilitating side effects. If someone could come back from cancer and win the Tour de France, I told myself, then I could certainly try to get through the physical and emotional challenges of cancer treatment and steel my resolve to restore a life that the cancer had turned upside down. During dreadful moments of the utter loneliness that cancer patients often experience, I sometimes envisioned Lance Armstrong streaking up a steep hill or crossing the finish line in Paris. Looking back, I can say unequivocally that for me no doping allegation will ever wash way the memory of Armstrong's triumphs. They provided me deep comfort during treatment and profound encouragement during remission..

I don't know if Lance Armstrong took performance-enhancing drugs during his cycling career. I do know that his tireless work for people like me, who must live everyday in the shadow of cancer, has raised millions of dollars for cancer research and cancer outreach. On a more existential level, his tireless efforts have made life sweeter for a large and ever-increasing community of people touched in some way by cancer.

When I next ride my bike along a trail that runs along the beautiful Brandywine River in Wilmington, Delaware, I will be thinking about Lance Armstrong--with deep gratitude,

I will never take off my LIVESTRONG wristband.

[bapa]

so that positive test...

[adam]

why do you need a positive test to confirm that he cheated?

avoidance and masking is an easy game to play...

[adam]

"Corticoid traces in tests on Lance Armstrong after Stage 1"
This article was published in the French daily, Le Monde after what they claim is an investigation they performed into urine testing during the current Tour de France. They claim their findings "prove that the American leader of the US Postal team used corticoids."

The translation follows:

Saint-Gaudens (Haute Garonne) from our special correspondents, July 20, 1999.

Lance Armstrong, the yellow jersey holder in the 86th Tour de France was tested on July 4 at 17.00 after the first stage of the Tour between Montaigu and Challans. The test was done by the Laboratoire national de lutte contre le dopage (LNLD) at Châtenay-Malabry (Hauts-de-Seine), and they detected traces of triamcinolone acétonide, a synthetic corticoid in the urine. However, the analysis was not declared positive, the testosterone ratio for epitestosterone being too low to warrant a positive finding. It was 0.2, when the limit after which a positive test is returned is fixed at 6.

The presence of the corticoid traces in the urine contradicts the statements made by Armstrong. On Monday, July 19, during the rest day in the Tour, the American affirmed at his press conference that he had not had any medical treatments since December 13, 1996, the date of his last treatment of chemotherapy. The rider had been a victim of testicular cancer which was diagnosed in August of the same year. The yellow jersey holder gave the assurance that he had never taken any corticoids. What is more, in the official report that followed the test, Lance Armstrong had written under the heading "Drugs Taken" - Nothing.

Since the start of the Tour, corticoid traces have been detected in the urine of other riders. In an article with the daily newspaper L'Humanité on Tuesday July 20, Jacques de Ceaurriz, the director of the LNLD, estimated that, of the hundreds of samples taken since the prologue, "20 to 30 cases" would reveal the presence of corticoids. But the traces were below the threshold ratio of 6.

Belgian rider Tom Steels (Mapei-Quick Step) was tested on July 5, and recorded a ratio of 1.8. Italian Michele Coppolillo (Mercatone Uno) was tested on July 6 and recorded 1.6. His compatriot Mariano Piccoli (Lampre), the early holder of the polka dot climber's jersey, was tested on July 7 and recorded 1.3. Another Italian, Daniele Nardello (Mapei-Quick Step) was tested on July 8 with a rate of 1.7. In each of these riders the same synthetic molecule was detected - triamcinolone acetonide.

This synthetic molecule is a less aggressive corticoid and is used as a diuretic for the patients suffering from kidney and cardiac diseases. According to a specialist who we questioned: "This drug does not have any use, two years after a bout of chemotherapy. It is an immuno-depressor which in the long term depresses the immune system." The same doctor continued: "On the other hand, if the urine tests detect this product, it is undoubtedly, an indication that the patient has taken it. There cannot be any confusion between the body naturally producing the substance and taken it exogenously."

Another corticoid was detected in the urine of a French rider. The presence of cortivazol was detected on July 6, in Christophe Rinero (Cofidis). The ratio was 7 and therefore higher than the postive test threshold. No sanction was however taken in this case because the use was allowed under a medical clearance. "Christophe fell during Liege-Bastogne-Liege, and hurt his patella. The traumatic injury required an arthroscopic examination in May", explained Jean-Jacques Menuet, the Cofidis team doctor.

The rider "consulted a sport's medicine doctor in his local area" who prescribed him a series of injections of Altin (a substance containing cortivazol). The injections were carried out at the "end of May and Christophe stopped riding for 6 weeks", continued Jean-Jacques Minuet. "No other alternative to the use of Altin was desirable. I would have given him the same treatment. This action was impossible to avoid and did not aim to be a performance-enhancement measure. If one cannot look after the best interests of the riders any more then I will quit", Jean-Jacques Menuet said and he reaffirmed his concern that he was not practising any illegal performance enhancement.

"The majority of our riders are actually in the red in this Tour, he said, with some of them recording hematocrit levels below 36%."

The detection of corticoids is a new thing in the 86th Tour de France. The laboratory of Châtenay-Malabry, after a year's work, perfected a test 10 days before the start of this Tour. Put to the the UCI, the method was accepted by them. The President, Hein Verbruggen, informed teams on the 2nd of July, the day befre the start of the Tour at Puy-du-Fou.

The UCI "prudent":

The system requires observing the spread of carbon isotopes in cortisol, a hormone naturally secreted by the body. This isotopic spectronomy enables anomalies to be detected, anomalies which attest to the presence of exogenous corticoids.

Hein Verbruggen affirmed that he was not aware. "It's the medical commission charged with anti-doping which, at the UCI, treats these issues. The Doctor Léon Schattenberg, head of this commission was not able to be contacted on Tuesday 20 July. "At the UCI, we are more prudent than in France" indicated Hein Verbruggen. "We respect medical secrecy. It is disappointing to note that this rule isn't followed by French doctors. In the end, this practice will end up going against us. We will lose the confidence of the riders who accept having these strict medical controls on the condition that we will not publish confidential information."

For the moment, the UCI is refusing to comment on the fundamental questions. In this Tour de France, there seems to be a resurgence of the use of corticoids, as noted by Armand Mégret President of the Medical commission of the French Cycling Federation, in an interview in Le Monde.

A doctor we interviewed has a hypothesis concerning the low levels found in the riders' samples: "If they are late corticoids, the low levels is not surprising, since their spread in the body happens more slowly and their tracability becomes harder."

[adam]

NYT on Lance Armstrong

In recent days, a number of American readers have written abusive emails to me because I have tried to present the diversity of views about the allegations of doping by Tour leader Lance Armstrong. I have not given my own view on the European press approach. But I do think it is part of a free society to allow all views to be expressed. Then we can (as adults) make up our own minds on the balance of information. That is what freedom is all about. For those who want to censor views because they don't agree with them think about that.
Here is a story from the New York Times from Samuel Abt which was published under the headling "Armstrong is engulfed by a frenzy over salve", on July 22, 1999.

PAU, France: Lance Armstrong continued to make news on two fronts Wednesday: he protected his commanding lead in the Tour de France with only four more race days to go and he found himself ensnarled in still more charges and countercharges about drugs, with cycling's governing body and Armstrong both stating that he has been using a skin cream, with authorization, to treat saddle sores.

The cream contains corticosteroids, which are anti-inflammatory and pain-killing drugs that are banned unless prescribed by doctors for health reasons. Armstrong's use of the cream is apparently why legal trace amounts of the substance had shown up in his urine tests early in the race. Countering accusations in a French newspaper that he has used an illegal drug, Armstrong acknowledged today that he had treated a rash with the cream but that "it has absolutely nothing to do with performance" and that "this is not a doping story."

The governing body of the sport agreed, saying in a statement that "minimal traces" of a cortisone substance that were found in a test of the American "did not constitute doping."

In a televised news conference after today's stage, a bitter Armstrong described himself as "persecuted" and a victim of "vulture journalism." He singled out Le Monde, which has devoted two long articles to Armstrong and drug tests he took in the race's first two days, July 3 and 4.

Discussing the results, the newspaper said that they showed "traces" that "do not show quantity but do show that he used a banned medication." It identified the product as a glucocorticoid, which it described as "steroid hormones secreted naturally."

Armstrong did not identify the salve he used. "They say stress causes cancer," said Armstrong, who had testicular cancer two and a half years ago and underwent three months of chemotherapy. "So if you want to avoid cancer, don't come to the Tour de France and wear the yellow jersey" of the overall leader. "It's too much stress."

The rider, who, after another strong performance in the Pyrenees today, seems certain to win the Tour de France when it finishes Sunday in Paris, seemed strained and weary as he spoke. Part of that was because of the long stage over four mountains that he had completed, consolidating his lead, half an hour before.

"I made a mistake in taking something I didn't consider to be a drug," he said, referring to what he called "a topical cream" for a skin rash. "When I think of taking something, I think of pills, inhalers, injections," he said. "I didn't consider skin cream 'taking something.'"

Defending him, the International Cycling Union said today that he had used the salve Cemalyt "to treat a skin allergy" and had presented a medical prescription to justify its use.

"After discussion with French authorities," the organization said, "we declare with the greatest firmness that this was a use authorized by the rules and does not therefore constitute doping."

At his news conference, Armstrong was pressed by a reporter from Le Monde, an authoritative and respected daily newspaper. Its reporters have been refused interviews by officials of the United States Postal Service, Armstrong's team, with the explanation that the paper's goals were not the team's.

Le Monde's reporter asked why the race leader denied this week that he had presented a medical certificate to justify the use of a banned substance. "Are you calling me a liar or a doper?" Armstrong asked in his only flash of anger. He then said that he had made a mistake in making the earlier denial.

In response to another question about the speculation that has surrounded his domination of the bicycle race after his treatment for the cancer that spread to his lungs and brain, Armstrong said that he was tired of questions about "How is that possible?" "You have to believe in yourself," the 27-year-old Texan said. "You have to fight. You have to hold the line."

Speculation about his comeback, especially in the French news medias, began shortly after he won the race's short prologue on July 3 and increased after he crushed his opponents in a long time trial, or race against the clock, on July 11. He followed that performance with another victory on July 13, this time on the first of two stages in the Alps, and has held the yellow jersey ever since.

With a lead of more than six minutes, Armstrong is virtually assured of victory, barring illness or injury, and would become the second American, after the three-time winner, Greg LeMond, to win the world's greatest bicycle race. Yet, speculation about Armstrong's stirring comeback has turned into what he describes as "innuendo."

"It's bad for the sport, for the Tour and for me," he said today. "I understand why there are more journalists here this year than ever before," he said, referring to the fact that about 950 reporters are accredited, about 200 more than the normal contingent. Some are particularly interested in the drug scandals that nearly destroyed the last Tour.

"I can understand their interest," Armstrong said, noting last year's scandal that resulted in the ouster of the Festina team on charges of systematic use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs. But, he said, reporters should be "a little more respectful."

After his news conference, he appeared on a television program devoted to the Tour and was asked briefly about the charges and his defense. "I'll sleep better tonight," he said.

[adam]

Former fiance said to have “provided information”

Federal investigators questioned singer Sheryl Crow as part of their investigation into Lance Armstrong and alleged doping at the US Postal team. Crow and Armstrong were a pair from 2003 to 2006, and were briefly engaged to be married.

The New York Daily News claimed that Crow, “provided information” to the investigators. It is not known what she may have said, or whether the USADA has contacted her for its investigation. In Tyler Hamilton's upcoming expose book, a footnote cites a “source close the investigation” saying that Crow had been subpoenaed.

Jeff Novitzky, who ran the government investigation, did not comment on the story, nor did attorneys for Crow or Armstrong.

The federal investigation was closed in February 2012, taking no action.

Crow's relationship with Armstrong covered his last two Tour de France victories, and she traveled with him to the race. Dr. Michele Ferrari, to whom the USADA has issued a lifetime ban, is said to have been concerned that her presence would distract Armstrong.

She lived with him at the apartment in Girona, Spain, which former teammates “have described as a distribution point for performance-enhancing drugs and a place to store bags of blood before re-infusing it at big races,” according to the newspaper. She also flew with him on his private jet, which former teammates Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton “have alleged were critical to doping schemes.”

[adam]

Ashenden calls commenator's claims 'ignorant'

USADA has issued a stinging response following veteran cycling commentator Phil Liggett's interview where the 69-year-old suggested that witnesses had been paid for giving evidence against Lance Armstrong in the agency's investigation into doping and conspiracy.

Speaking with South Africa's Ballz Radio on August 27, Liggett questioned the merits of USADA's case.

"Why is USADA doing this?" he repeatedly posed. "It's politically motivated. They have a reason for doing this and it's not what they say - it's not to clean up the sport of cycling. There is another reason behind this which they are clearly not saying."

Last week, Armstrong announced that he would not fight USADA's charges of doping and conspiracy which resulted in the agency stripping him of all results, including his seven Tour de France titles, obtained on and subsequent to August 1, 1998 and then issuing a lifetime ban.

Liggett continued: "I could get 10 people together and say, ‘I don't like you. And you take drugs.' But I have no proof. So the fact remains there is no evidence." According to the commentator, USADA is "a nefarious local drugs agency" before going on to claim that it was corrupt.

"Now I can tell you one thing," Liggett said. "And I could prove it in SA [South Africa] but I ... I met a chap who worked with Armstrong on Saturday in Boulder Colorado. And he told me that he had a visit, two years ago, to tell, and the question was, they were agents from a particular agency and they said: ‘Will you tell us that Lance Armstrong took EPO? And we could assure that you will never want for money again'. That was his quote on Thursday and he told them in words I can't put on radio what to do with that and they said "I think we're talking to the wrong man" and they walked away.

"I believe that these 10 witnesses who have all admitted apparently to seeing Lance take drugs, or selling drugs or passing them on and they themselves taking drugs - the reason they're witnesses is they've either been paid or they've been given a deal that they'll never be touched as far as suspensions go."

In response to the claims, USADA issued the following:

"It is blatantly false information from someone who has never had the courtesy to contact USADA for truthful and accurate information," said USADA media relations manager, Annie Skinner.

Meantime, former independent UCI biological passport panel member Dr. Michael Ashenden has written an open letter to Liggett calling his claims ‘ignorant'.

Published on nyvelocity.com, Ashenden says:

"But to answer your question, USADA is not doing this just because of Lance Armstrong. Instead, its about a conspiracy. You can find that word often in USADA's charging letter. A conspiracy that has infested cycling for over a decade. A conspiracy whose filthy tentacles still strangle sport today. A conspiracy that needs to be excised like a cancerous growth."

[adam]

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... ess-indeed

A Filthy Business Indeed

Thu, 08/30/2012 - 10:11pm by Andy Shen
Below is an open letter from Michael Ashenden to Phil Liggett, in response to Liggett's appearance on Ballz Visual Radio on August 27.

August 31, 2012

Phil Liggett, MBE

Dear Phil,

I found the interview you gave Ballz Visual Radio on 27 August 2012 to be an appalling commentary on disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong’s decision to accept the charges brought against him by USADA.

You repeatedly posed the question “Why is USADA doing this?” Not once but numerous times, as if it were some elusive mystery. The answer is simple – you could have seen this if you had read USADA’s charging letter. USADA did this because they had obtained evidence that Armstrong had used prohibited substances, had been in possession of prohibited substances, had trafficked drugs including EPO and testosterone, and had administered such drugs to others. USADA also have evidence that Armstrong assisted, encouraged, aided, abetted and covered up those antidoping rule violations.

In fact the evidence didn’t end there. USADA also discovered evidence that Johann Bruyneel (I’m sure you recognise that name, he manages the RadioShack team you spoke of during this year’s Tour de France) possessed and trafficked drugs, as well as assisted one or more anti-doping rule violations. Actually the evidence spread wider, and also implicated Pedro Celaya who is the RadioShack team doctor. Also Luis del Moral (a sports doctor working in Spain at present) and Pepi Marti who has been a team trainer associated with Armstrong’s teams for the past decade or so. And let’s not forget Michele Ferrari, who currently provides training information to cyclists. I think you’ll recognise his name?

Can you see a common thread yet, Phil? Can you see that each and every one of those individuals played a current role in sport in 2012? Isn’t that what you’d want our antidoping agencies to be doing – revealing and removing drug cheats from sport?

You failed to mention that Armstrong was still competing as a triathlete in 2012 (I know that you recognise the term ‘triathlon’ because its a sport you have commentated for in the past). But to answer your question, USADA is not doing this just because of Lance Armstrong. Instead, its about a conspiracy. You can find that word often in USADA’s charging letter. A conspiracy that has infested cycling for over a decade. A conspiracy whose filthy tentacles still strangle sport today. A conspiracy that needs to be excised like a cancerous growth.

Which brings me to another point. You said during the interview that you’ve seen people fight back and beat cancer “because of the way that Armstrong delivers his words”. You intimate that without Armstrong’s words they would have perished. Shame on you, Phil. That is a despicable, wretched suggestion which infers that those poor souls who do succumb to cancer somehow lacked the will to fight it. I am appalled that you could be so ignorant and heartless.

However that was not the only realm in which you displayed ignorance. You questioned USADA’s authority to act as if it was still a live question. If you are still a little foggy I would urge you re-read the decision of Judge Sam Sparks, who Armstrong asked to clarify that point. Question asked, question answered.

I also found it disconcerting that you did not know the correct name of WADA (World Anti Doping Agency, not the “World Anti Drugs Agency” as you referred to them). They have a wonderful website Phil, where you could brush up on the World Anti Doping Code under whose rules the conspirators were charged. Look carefully at Article 2.2. It describes how the ‘Use of a Prohibited Substance’ can be established by any reliable means, including witness statements. Witness statements such as those evidently given by around ten of Armstrong’s team mates and team members.

Let me just clarify a legal point for you, Phil. When you confided to the interviewer that your chum from Colorado had told you that he had been offered money to say that Armstrong doped, that is called ‘hearsay’. Its called hearsay because you didn’t hear or see what happened, your friend did. Courts don’t like hearsay evidence Phil – in fact even a newbie defense lawyer would have hearsay booted out of court in an instant. In contrast, USADA pointed out that their evidence was derived from eyewitness statements containing firsthand knowledge of the conduct. That kind of evidence is legally robust and has indeed, as you colloquially put it, been used to “hang a man for murder”. Armstrong chose not to oppose that eyewitness evidence, and I’m darned sure he could have gotten a half decent lawyer to sift out the hearsay from the eyewitness evidence…

Interestingly, Armstrong suggests that his teammates know who won those seven Tours. Well, if they could remember that, wouldn’t they also be coherent enough to know what they had seen firsthand during those races? Don’t you think the mental image of the race leader with a plastic tube hanging out of his arm and a bag of blood hanging above his head from a picture hook on the hotel room wall would stick in your memory?

Your muddled interpretation of out of competition testing being a foolproof method to catch cheats is so flimsy and threadbare as to hardly warrant comment. But the same line is being spun so relentlessly by Armstrong sympathizers that I feel compelled to address it. I also worry that you will be skeptical of what I say, so here is what I propose. At the end of your interview, you got a plug in for an upcoming conference that you will attend with your fellow Briton, professional road cyclist David Millar whom you referred to as “one of the biggest bike riders we’ve currently got” in cycling. While you’re having a tea break, ask him two questions. “Did you ever use EPO?”. “Did you ever get caught during out of competition tests?”. Just in case you don’t get a chance to chat with David, the answers are “Yes” and “No”. You’d have to believe in the tooth fairy to suggest it is not possible for a professional road cyclist to use EPO without being caught.

Phil I work full-time as an antidoping researcher. I specialize in the field of blood doping, so a lot of my time has been spent trying to find a test that can detect when athletes use blood transfusion. I’ve been half successful – we can now catch athletes if they transfuse someone else’s blood. However, during Armstrong’s era there was no test able to catch them if they gamed the system by reinfusing their own blood (‘autologous transfusion’). At the risk of stating the obvious, Armstrong could have bloated himself with a bag of stored blood every day of the week, and been tested 300 times per day, and he would still have been negative.

Which brings me to yet another point, Phil. You breathlessly proclaimed that Armstrong had passed more than 500 tests and was negative each time. I’ve worked in antidoping for a decade, but I’m not aware of anything that we can find in a urine sample that shows us that an athlete was in possession of a prohibited substance. I don’t know of any marker that indicates whether or not an athlete trafficked drugs. Similarly, I can assure you that labs cannot detect when an athlete has encouraged a teammate to take drugs. All of those are antidoping offenses under the WADA Code (review Article 2.2 if you need a refresher). They are also the essence of what Armstrong and his conspirators were charged with. Not to labor the point, but where does your 500-test-defense fit into that picture?

Phil I was shocked that you think that all that matters is that Armstrong “brought a lot of kids and a lot of adults into the sport”. Is that truly what you believe? Popularize the sport at all costs? A hallway pass for cheats, provided that they sell copy and attract the fans? Your statement does a grave disservice to your place in the British Cycling Hall of Fame.

You also made much of what you called a “minefield” concerning who the stripped results should be awarded to. You seemed to infer that unless we can sort that rot out, we should do nothing. Really? Don’t uproot a conspiracy of half a dozen individuals still infesting our sport today, simply because you can’t make up your mind who should win the races they fraudulently snatched from clean athletes? Beside your point being completely irrelevant, based on the knowledge you have demonstrated about how the antidoping system works, I think you’ve disqualified yourself from offering an opinion on that one!

Finally, you asked what happened to the statute of limitations of eight years. Well, if you have a look at USADA’s charge letter they explained that one too. First, USADA had substantial evidence of doping within the past eight years. Second, evidence from outside eight years can be used to corroborate more recent evidence. And if you continue reading that paragraph, you’ll also satisfy yourself that results outside the limitation can be disqualified where there was false statements or fraudulent concealment. Cue “conspiracy”, Phil.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Ashenden, PhD

[adam]

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/n ... ats-cancer

My old man was quick as hell with a shotgun, and I hated it. He made a mockery of a good part of my youth. Youth is supposed to be about vitality. My cancer-ridden old man shot that idea to death a lifetime ago in the fields of Minnesota. I grew up there shooting pheasants or, more accurately, wanting to shoot pheasants. The hunting went like this:

The Brittany Spaniel would lock up on point. My old man would say, "Why don't you take this one?'' I'd step in on the bird. A rooster would come cackling out of the grass. I'd whip up my shotgun, be drawing a bead on the disappearing pheasant, and "ka-boom!'' Feathers would fly, and the rooster would tumble to the ground. After which, I'd turn around to look at my old man, who would announce: "Sorry. Couldn't wait forever. It looked like he was going to get out of range.''

As soon as I graduated from high school, I moved out of the house. Not that long after, I lit out for Alaska. The excuse was traffic jam tens of miles long on U.S. Highway 10 coming out of Minneapolis on the opening day of fishing season. I was, at the time, a student at the University of Minnesota. Opening days for anything you could shoot or catch were always looney in Minnesota. People tell me now it's that way for the opening days of Walmarts and malls. Back in the 1970s, though, it was for hunting and fishing seasons.

I wanted to get away to a land with readily accessible wilderness. Alaska provided that and still does, but that's a subject for other writings. This is about my old man.

Quick and tough
He was quick as hell, even after the cancer got him. And he was tough. The doctors cut out most of his liver, part of his intestine, and God only knows what else in order to remove a huge tumor from his abdomen. It was a great diet. He went into the surgery looking like a football player and emerged looking like a bike racer. The physical changes didn't slow him down any. He had to eat all the time to maintain energy, but he went on shooting as well as ever as a cancer survivor.

And then he became a cancer victim.

Cancer is like that. It haunts people. You can get almost free only to have it come sneaking back. I have too many dead friends who lived that nightmare and, of course, my old man. If anyone was going to beat cancer just because they were tough, he was the one, and he couldn't beat it. Given this, I'm about as fed up as one can get with the apologists for seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong, who these days seem to believe Armstrong should be given some sort of pass on doping his way to victory because he beat cancer.

Nobody beats cancer.

Nobody.

Placebo effect
Doctors wage war on cancer, and patients get lucky and survive, or unlucky and die. Medicine has learned a lot about cancer in the last 50 years, but there remains a lot we don't know. There are various cancers for which the treatment now provides high odds of survival. There are other cancers for which it is the opposite. There is no doubt that a positive attitude on the part of a patient helps going into battle -- as does physical fitness. Those things are well documented.

The human brain is a strange and interesting organism. We don't really understand a lot of its workings. Medicine can document the power of the placebo effect, but not how it works. "There are various theories that attempt to explain this phenomenon but the underlying mechanisms remain mysterious,'' one medical website notes. What we know about the placebo effect is that it is a powerful, subconscious reaction.

The placebo effect may well have allowed someone, somewhere to beat cancer. Lord knows the placebo effect has been credited with overcoming all sorts of other ailments. But beating pain or disease or discomfort with the placebo effect is not beating it all, because it is a subconscious reaction that might kick in or might not. One cannot will the placebo effect; you can only hope for it. You can only hope to get lucky.

Armstrong got lucky in whatever way he got lucky. Maybe it was the placebo effect in part. Maybe it was solely the surgery and meds provided by some first-class medical professionals. Maybe it was divine intervention. None of us will ever know, but suffice to say he did not beat cancer because of his strong will. His physical fitness, indeed, might have helped him to emerge from the dark side as a cancer survivor, but that didn't allow him to beat cancer either.

Will power?
Armstrong got lucky. My old man got unlucky.

Hundreds of thousands of cancer patients get unlucky every year. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in this country. More than half a million people will die of the disease before 2012 is over. And it is an insult to every one of them and their families to believe Armstrong beat cancer, because this misguided belief suggests that all the others are dead because they just weren't tough enough to beat cancer. It suggests they just didn't have the will power.

Oh, if only they'd been as tough as Lance.

That is a crock of bullshit. I know a couple dead women who were among the psychologically toughest people I've ever met. It didn't help them. The cancer killed them anyway. The cancer didn't care how tough they were, just as it didn't care a bit about Armstrong's toughness.

Armstrong is a lucky survivor. He is also, without doubt, a smart guy. It wasn't just his body that helped him win seven yellow jerseys. It was his brain, too. And given his intelligence, it isn't hard to believe that early on he could see what was coming if he lived. Everyone in cycling was doping in the 1990s. The evidence is overwhelming. And everyone was destined to get caught. History invariably catches up. History will not allow conspiracies of this size to remain buried forever.

Ullrich, Patini, Zulle, Verinque, Hamilton, Landis .... the list of those caught doping goes on and on. Old Armstrong teammate Jonathon Vaughters never got caught, but he is among those who have since emerged from the doping closet. This week, Vaughters outed three other Armstrong teammates who now work for him on the cycling team Garmin-Sharp. Forget the U.S. Anti-Drug Administration declaring Armstrong a doper, and his choosing to accept the penalties for doping instead of fighting the accusation.

Just take a look at what's out there. Read "The Secret Race,'' the book by a guy from Homer, Daniel Coyle, and former Armstrong teammate Tyler Hamilton. The evidence is overwhelming. Armstrong doped, and then he duped.

There are whole bunch of people in this country seeking to defend his cheating because he beat cancer and then he set up a foundation, albeit a self-serving one, to further the fight against cancer. If Livestrong has helped advance the battle against this disease one millimeter, that is a good thing. If Livestrong has helped one victim of cancer survive, that is a good thing. But no one should deceive themselves.

Masterful PR move
Armstrong did not create Livestrong purely out of the goodness of his heart. There is a symbiotic relationship here. Livestrong was a masterful PR move. It made Armstrong more than just a bike racer and a cancer survivor. It crowned him as a holy warrior in the battle against one of the most dreaded diseases in the country, and because he wears that crown a whole lot of people want to cut him slack on his cheating or, worst of all, believe his persistent lie that he never doped.

He never tested positive, he says. I never tested positive, either. Neither did Bjarne Riis, the 1996 Tour champ. Armstrong seems to have taken a page from the Riis handbook. It was Riis who first made the claim "I have never tested positive." He persisted with that claim right up until the day he admitted he doped his way to victory.

As a fan of cycling, these guys have had me thinking a lot about my old man lately. Along with being tough and unable to beat cancer, he was brutally honest. He believed that telling the truth was one of a man's great virtues. I don't know what he would have thought of this whole Armstrong mess, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been good. He never liked cheats, but he liked liars even less. Most of all, he detested liars and cheats who tried to hide their misbehavior behind "good works."

Maybe it had something to do with being raised Catholic, a religion he forcefully rejected early on. He was long dead before the dark side of the church began to emerge, before the pedophiles who hid behind their good works were outed. Their good works, thankfully, didn't protect them -- and shouldn't. Neither should any good works of Armstrong. It's time for the Texan to pay the piper. It's time for Ole Lance to man-up and admit he stuck needles in his veins to gain an edge. It's time for him to come clean about better living through chemistry because his life has been about little else.

He lived thanks to chemistry, and he won those Tour victories thanks to chemistry.

[DOC]

masking agents can be detected, and would have been detected on tests, these were not found, blood samples were not found to be irregular, again i say where is the positive test

[God is an Englishman]

If masking agents can be detected all the time, they why use them?

[Bomber]

If masking agents can be detected all the time, they why use them?

By using masking of masking agents!

[adam]

Feature: France television alleges positives for Armstrong retests, also that ex-wife testified
by Shane Stokes at 8:50 PM EST
Categories: Pro Cycling, Doping
Kristin Armstrong, George Hincapie and others said to have given evidence
More details of USADA’s case against Lance Armstrong has emerged as a result of a broadcast on France 2 television, with the Stade 2 programme claiming that investigators have positive tests to back up accusations that he doped during his career.

“We can reveal that Tygart has in his possession reanalysed samples which are finally positive,” said France 2 reporter Nicolas Geay, who travelled to the United States and Canada last week in the making of the programme.

The Frenchman was referring to US Anti-Doping Agency CEO Travis Tygart, who has led the investigation into the rider and his former US Postal Service team.

Geay said that samples from previous races – presumably the Tour de France – were re-examined and that evidence of doping has emerged. Neither the timeframe nor the substances in question were mentioned on the show.

In 2005 l’Equipe reported that retests of Armstrong’s samples from 1999 were positive for EPO. A test for the banned substance did not exist when Armstrong won his first Tour, and so no such examination was carried out after the race.

The UCI did not act on the positives in 2005, saying that normal protocols were not followed.

The French Anti Doping Agency AFLD is thought to have cooperated with USADA and Federal authorities during their respective investigations, with AFLD lab director Francoise Lasne and testing director Jean-Pierre Verdy reported as being interviewed in the autumn of 2010.

In September of that year, the former agency head Pierre Bordry promised that the AFLD would co-operate fully if requested. "If the U.S. attorneys and the U.S. Agency ask us for something in the context of a judicial mutual assistance, we will of course do so,” he said.

That sentiment was echoed on November 16th 2010 by an unnamed AFLD official, who said that the agency would share "everything we know, everything we have, in the fridges, in the freezers, everything, everywhere.” He added that they are prepared to answer "everything that they [the investigators – ed.] ask.”

Armstrong’s samples were tested when he won the Tours, but those examinations were of limited effectiveness for a number of reasons. Firstly, no EPO test existed prior to the 2000 Olympics, and could be beaten anyway after that point through timed microdosing [injecting tiny amounts of the drug directly into a vein] or the use of a protease masking agent.

Secondly, to this day there is no test for autologous blood transfusions; injections of an athlete’s own stored blood. Thirdly, there is often a time lag between the new introduction of a new doping agent and its detection. According to Armstrong’s former team-mate Tyler Hamilton, the Texan’s use of Michele Ferrari as his doctor meant that he had the very latest and least detectable products.

He said that he was always “two years ahead of what everybody else was doing,” as a result.

“If you were careful and paid attention,” writes Hamilton, “you could dope and be 99 percent certain that you would not get caught Ferrari received a lifetime ban from USADA this summer after he did not contest charges against him. Over the past two decades, the Italian has built up a reputation as the most advanced doctor in this area of the sport. The US Postal Service team was previously claimed to have paid him a huge retainer to ensure he didn’t work with other competitors, thus handing them an advantage in this area,

The implication is that it was far from a level playing field, even if other teams were also doping.

Long list of witnesses:

The Stade 2 programme also made further claims. It echoed recent reports that Armstrong’s former fiancée Sheryl Crow cooperated with the investigation, but also said that his ex-wife Kristin Armstrong has provided evidence.

Both testimonies are expected to be part of USADA’s dossier of evidence, which also includes testimonies of approximately ten of Armstrong’s former team-mates.

Today’s programme said that these witnesses include Floyd Landis, Jonathan Vaughters, Levi Leipheimer, Dave Zabriskie, Christian Vande Velde and George Hincapie, the only rider to back Armstrong during his previously-successful seven Tours.

His testimony is expected to carry considerable weight as he is highly regarded within the peloton and also with fans. He retired in August and refused to confirm or deny testifying.

Another two likely to be witnesses are Tyler Hamilton and Betsy Andreu. The first is another ex-teammate, and has penned an account of his career with explosive details. Entitled ‘The Secret Race” and released on September 5th, it refers to Armstrong’s work with Ferrari and said that the Italian gave specific advice about how to appear clean.

It said one tactic was for Armstrong to sleep at altitude and microdose EPO in order to be as strong as possible without running afoul of controls.

The book also repeats suggestions about an alleged cover-up after a positive test for EPO in 2001. “Don't worry, I will meet the UCI, everything is under control,” it quotes Hamilton as saying that is what Armstrong told him at the time. The UCI denies any shielding took place.

As for Andreu, the wife of former USPS rider Frankie Andreu and someone who previously testified against Amstrong in the SCA Promotions case, she told Stade 2 she believed there is a likely reason why the USADA case has progressed further than the now-stalled Federal investigation.

“It is believed it was…absolutely political,” she said of its unexpected halting. “That is why Lance Armstrong hired politically-connected lawyers.

“USADA is bipartisan, neither democrat or republican,” she continued. “I really believe that USADA is beholden to the truth and it doesn't matter if you are from the right or the left [politically].”

The Agency was not available for comment after the programme, but it is understood to be set to release some of its evidence later this month to the UCI, to WADA and publicly. The issues of witnesses, positive tests and other factors may well become much clearer then.

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12781 ... z25lW8qOCw

[adam]

Commentary: Doper Lance Armstrong stripped...
Published on September 7, 2012

By Anthony L Hall

The entire world seemed shocked a couple of weeks ago when the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) stripped Lance Armstrong of all cycling titles and prize money he had won since 1998 and banned him from the sport for life. Most notably this included stripping him of his seven Tour de France titles.

But I was not – as this quote will attest:

The real tragedy here is not Lance falling from grace, but the disillusionment this is bound to cause among the millions of cancer survivors who derived life-sustaining inspiration from his ‘LIVESTRONG’ life story. That his life story is turning out to be a phenomenal fraud is devastating enough for me. I can only imagine the impact it’s having, and will have, on them. (“Lance Armstrong: falling from grace,” The iPINIONS Journal, May 24, 2011)

And this one too:

I think USADA will (and should) strip Lance of his tour victories and ban him from professional sports, like triathlons, for life. (“The Other Shoe Drops: USADA Files Doping Charges,” The iPINIONS Journal, June 13, 2012)

In fact, I’m on record declaring my belief that Armstrong doped his way to fame and fortune on an apothecary of drugs that make those he took to fight cancer seem like mere aspirin. So for me the only thing noteworthy about this development is the way he’s displaying the pathological nature of his mendacity and self-delusion.

For here, in part, is the statement he issued that triggered USADA’s decision:

There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, “Enough is enough.” For me, that time is now…

The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today – finished with this nonsense…

If I thought for one moment that by participating in USADA’s process, I could confront these allegations in a fair setting and – once and for all – put these charges to rest, I would jump at the chance. But I refuse to participate in a process that is so one-sided and unfair.

USADA cannot assert control of a professional international sport and attempt to strip my seven Tour de France titles. I know who won those seven Tours, my teammates know who won those seven Tours, and everyone I competed against knows who won those seven Tours… (Associated Press, August 24, 2012)

Except that the only reason Armstrong quit USADA’s process is that a federal court threw out his frivolous attempt to stop it. That process, of course, is the generally recognized and accepted way for athletes suspected of doping to plead their case. Therefore, Armstrong damning it in this fashion seems more self-righteous than principled.

More to the point, the only reason he quit is that the teammates he cites in support of his innocence are the very witnesses USADA had lined up to affirm his guilt. This makes his statement an unwitting confession. Never mind the mockery he makes of his notorious fight against cancer by claiming that it’s too much for him to stand and fight against USADA.

Frankly, the evidence against him is such that Lance Armstrong insisting he’s no doper is rather like O.J. Simpson insisting he’s no murderer. In any event, this development makes Armstrong easily the most notorious cheater in sports history. And I suppose calling it a “fall from grace” mistakenly assumes he had grace in the first place….

With that, I shall end by reiterating my long-standing plea:

I believe policing drugs in professional sports is not only Orwellian, but utterly futile. After all … athletes have always, and will always, do or take anything that might give them a competitive advantage. And if what they do or take poses no harm to anyone except themselves, who cares?!

This enlightened attitude towards performance-enhancing drugs would have precluded the ‘scandals’ that now threaten the professional careers of Tour de France Champion Floyd Landis, and Olympic (100m) Champion Justin Gatlin; to say nothing of sparing them international ridicule as pathetic liars and cheaters. (“Decriminalize Drugs…Especially in Sports,” The iPINIONS Journal, August 3, 2006)

And finally this:

Although Lance Armstrong never tested positive, practically every Frenchman believes the seven-time Tour de France Champion is nothing more than a cycling dope fiend. But similar clouds of suspicion hang over superstars in every sport these days – from those in baseball to swimming. And the only way to bring integrity to sports is to repeal the moral prohibition against drug use and allow athletes to do or take whatever they deem is necessary to be successful…. (“A plea for Landis… et al: decriminalize drugs…,” The iPINIONS Journal, August 3, 2006)

Which constrains me to apologize to the French for casting aspersions on the suspicions they’ve held about Armstrong from the day he won his first Tour in 1999. I’m just waiting now for the breaking news about Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs….

[adam]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19527032

Lance Armstrong: UCI no plans to appeal against Usada decision

Lance Armstrong's lifetime ban could be upheld after the International Cycling Union (UCI) said it had no plans to appeal against the US Anti-Doping Agency's (Usada) decision.
Usada stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles after he said he would no longer fight doping charges.

However, the UCI has yet to receive the case file from Usada.

UCI boss Pat McQuaid said they would not appeal "unless Usada's decision and case file give reason to do otherwise".

Armstrong says he is innocent and insists only the sport's governing body, the UCI, has the power to sanction him.

The American told reporters at a World Cancer Congress event in Montreal last week that he was "not afraid" of any report Usada might send to the UCI.

McQuaid sees no reason why an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) would be necessary but the Irishman did admit it is something that will be looked at stringently, possibly at the governing body's management committee on 19-20 September.

"The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist. They [Usada] have a full case file so let them provide the full case file," he said.

"And unless the Usada's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to Cas or not to recognise the Usada's sanctions on Lance Armstrong.

"We need to examine the decision and the file in order to deal with it properly and this is going to take some time. However, I can assure you that this will be prioritised.
"The reason the UCI is seeking the file is that we want to provide a timely response and not delay matters any further than necessary. The sooner we receive the full decision and case file the sooner we can provide its response."

McQuaid has also revealed that 215 tests during Armstrong's career, which ended in 2011, were overseen by the UCI, and reiterated that there was no cover-up of a failed test by the Texan in 2001 as had been alleged.

"There are people who are saying the UCI helped Armstrong or was complicit with Armstrong in relation to those tests," he said. "That's absolutely untrue ... there's a lot of people very quick to make statements to the media which have no backup evidence."

McQuaid is also interested in the riders who allegedly have testified against Armstrong in exchange for a reduced sentence on past doping offences.

"The UCI assumes that the decision and file will also detail the sanction the Usada may wish to enforce upon the riders who have provided testimony in exchange for reduced sanctions," he said.

The UCI president, however, was not impressed by Tyler Hamilton, who rode with Armstrong on the US Postal team between 1998 and 2001 and released a book this week claiming again that his former team-mate had doped.

Asked if he believes Hamilton's evidence is now tainted, McQuaid added: "I think so... when people time the arrival of books to meet certain situations I question what their real motivations are. Is it to make money?"

[adam]

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/bac ... d_why.html

On Biking: Lance Armstrong, doping and why it matters
September 7, 2012 02:55 PM

By Jonathan Simmons, Guest Columnist

A friend recently asked me if I thought Lance Armstrong had doped. She’d read about the recent allegations against him of doping and cheating, and she wondered what I thought: was he a sinner or a saint?

By now, most people are convinced that Lance either doped or was clean. Sinner or saint, cheater or cheated: most people have already pretty much made up their minds. No room for gray, no in between, and not a lot of undecided voters.

I am a long-time fan of cycling. Right about the time Lance began his string of victories, I began to follow the Tour. Who would win, who would lose, and who would crack: bike racing was better than Shakespeare.

But a few years ago, sometime around the time of Lance’s comeback from retirement, I lost interest in the pro tour. It wasn’t because of yet another round of allegations and confirmations of doping in the peloton. I knew cycling had a long and sordid history of illegal drug use and performance enhancements.

It was just that I had gotten older, and with age came a certain kind of wisdom. The kind that told me life is short, racing is hard, and I was slowing down. Along with this wisdom came the realization that there were things I’d rather be doing instead of spending countless hours training, all so I could ride 0.47 mph faster. Things like hanging out with friends, going for a walk, or reading a good book. Slow riding, if you will, the first cousin of slow food.

For a moment, let’s assume that all of the top cyclists for the past 30 years were doping (an assumption that does not require much stretch of the imagination). If that were the case, then what would it mean to not dope?

For some riders, it would mean a lifetime of mediocrity, cycling’s version of Double A baseball. For others, it would mean always being one step away from the podium: good, not great. And for others, it would mean quitting the sport that they loved because why bother: the game’s rigged.

For most of the top cyclists over the past 30 (heck, 100) years, doping was the Faustian bargain they made in order to win. That’s changing, and hopefully there will come a time when we can feel confident that all of the best riders don’t dope or cheat. I’d like to believe we’ll get there some day. We’re just not there yet.

But back to my friend’s question: do I believe Lance doped? In a word: yes.

Assuming, for a moment, that he did dope, does it really even matter? After all, if everyone doped, why go after Lance? It’s a waste of money, a vendetta, nothing more than a witch-hunt, right?

Wrong.

I happen to believe that the truth heals, the truth shall set you free. That was the whole point of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-apartheid South Africa, that is the whole point in pursuing Lance. No one is above the law, no one is too big to fail. There’s no statute of limitations when it comes to the truth. In both things that matter, like life after apartheid, and things that don’t, like the world of professional racing.

Jonathan Simmons is a psychologist and an avid cyclist. His book “Here For The Ride” will be published later this year.

[adam]

Armstrong's agent says USADA's ban hurts fundraising
By Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Updated 52m ago

Lance Armstrong's agent and foundation on Friday both issued statements that said the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency's lifetime ban against Armstrong is hurting his fundraising efforts for cancer survivors.

The statements were in response to learning that Armstrong would be banned from participating in the Oct. 7 Chicago Marathon. Armstrong's attorney said Armstrong planned to run in the event to raise money for his Livestrong foundation for cancer survivors

"People are now seeing USADA for what it really is: an out-of-control agency that uses millions of taxpayer dollars to deprive athletes of the most basic due process rights," Armstrong's agent, Bill Stapleton, said in a statement. "USADA's unprecedented and irrational efforts to strong-arm local race organizers and prevent Lance from participating in Team Livestrong fundraising is just the latest chapter in USADA's never-ending vendetta against Lance."

USADA responded Friday with a statement that said Armstrong knew he was accepting ineligibility from such events when he chose not to fight USADA's doping charges against him.
"When he chose not to contest in a public hearing the overwhelming evidence of his cheating, Mr. Armstrong was well aware that he was accepting ineligibility from world-class athletic events like the Chicago Marathon," the statement said. " This is what the world rules require for all sanctioned athletes, high profile or not."

About 250 runners still will race on behalf of Livestrong, a spokeswoman for the marathon said. Livestrong's "participation will in no way be affected," the spokeswoman said.
The foundation saw a spike in donations right after USADA banned Armstrong on Aug. 24, but those donations since have gravitated toward more normal levels. The day before he was banned, the foundation had 45 online donations for $3,500, according to the foundation. In the three days after the ban, Livestrong averaged 463 online donations and $30,000 per day. Earlier this week, the number of online donations was fewer than 70 per day, and the amount was less than $5,400 per day.

Armstrong is banned from the marathon as part of the lifetime ban issued last month by USADA. The agency had charged him with using banned drugs and blood transfusions to gain an edge throughout his cycling career. After Armstrong declined to fight the charges in arbitration, USADA issued the ban and stripped him of his seven titles in the Tour de France.
The ban bars participation in any sport or event sanctioned by a sporting body that is a signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code. That would include events sanctioned by U.S. Track and Field, such as the Chicago Marathon. Armstrong has competed in the New York Marathon and the Boston Marathon, both of which also would be covered by the ban. He also would be barred from triathlons, another sport in which Armstrong has participated on behalf of his foundation.

"Lance has helped the foundation raise nearly $500 million for the fight against cancer," Livestrong CEO Doug Ulman said in a statement. "It's frustrating and unfortunate that this decision could affect the foundation's grassroots fundraising efforts. Team LIVESTRONG participants raise money to fuel the Lance Armstrong Foundation's free services for cancer survivors. When Lance participates in a Team LIVESTRONG event, it honors team members' efforts and fuels their ability to raise more dollars for the foundation's work."
The USADA said it had overwhelming evidence that Armstrong doped, including witnesses and blood samples. Armstrong has maintained his innocence and said he didn't want to fight USADA anymore because he considered it an unfair and unconstitutional fight.

Marathon organizers also issued a statement Friday:

"The Bank of America Chicago Marathon adheres to USA Track & Field rules, which includes following the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) regulations, the testing agency of the marathon. USADA's lifetime ban prohibits Lance Armstrong from entering races sanctioned by USA Track & Field, which applies to the Bank of America Chicago Marathon, as well as all competitions governed by USA Track & Field. The Bank of America Chicago Marathon has had no direct contact with Lance Armstrong, nor had he submitted a formal registration to participate."

[adam]

Confronting the Lance factor

September 8, 2012

Rupert Guinness
Sports Reporter

WHEN Lance Armstrong appeared on television on August 23, I thought little of it. But it was deadline day. Would Armstrong defend himself against doping charges laid by the United States Anti-Doping Agency?

I was three days into a holiday, sitting in a bar in Santa Monica with my wife. Life away from the bike was pleasant. Of course, Armstrong would fight USADA. It would go to a hearing later this year. Or, so I thought.

No sooner had we returned to our hotel from dinner and switched the television on that we learnt Armstrong had given up the fight. I was shocked that Armstrong had walked away, despite reading the statements from Armstrong and USADA. But by the next day I was disappointed. I had wanted to hear Armstrong answer USADA's charges. Those charges were so serious I felt he needed to respond - for his sake if he was innocent - to everyone in cycling who deserved to know the truth, and still do.

Because of the conflicts it created, the Armstrong era heightened the ''omerta'' which had wrongfully existed in the sport when it came to doping.

In my book What A Ride, I wrote of the Armstrong reign being bitter years on the Tour. Conflict on and off the bike was constant. He thrived on it.

One of my regular travelling partners was Sunday Times writer David Walsh who, with former professional cyclist and now journalist Paul Kimmage, has driven the quest to expose dope cheats. In doing so, both have crashed into conflict with Armstrong, who they have accused of doping. Both have also criticised the cycling media for failing to expose the gravity of doping in the sport, and for being complicit with the problem. They have a point. Had more cycling media - including myself - pursued doping more vigorously in the 1990s and early 2000s when it rocketed, maybe we would have been collectively stronger to tackle it sooner.

Maybe the discussion and investigation of today would have existed earlier, stymied doping's explosion in cycling and paved the way for those who race clean to get the recognition they deserve earlier.

But as unbelievable and wrong as it was, it was not so easy to take Armstrong on. Since refusing to answer USADA's charges, the agency has stripped Armstrong of his seven Tour de France victories. When he claimed the first in 1999, the success story spawned an explosion of business: media, broadcasters, advertisers, sponsors and race organisers all jumped aboard.

Yes. Me too, having known Armstrong since late 1992 when he turned professional after the Barcelona Olympics and leading up to his 1996 cancer diagnosis.

Walsh recently wrote of Armstrong being a puppeteer of a media reliant on access to him. There was also media reliant on the advertising gains from sponsors linked with him and his team. But cross him and you did so at your peril. I found out how access could be cut off as quickly as it was given. Twice I was on Armstrong's black list, both times for being Walsh's friend. The first time, the ban was lifted after I reminded Armstrong that ''guilt by association'' was what he had accused the media of because he claimed disgraced Italian sports doctor Michele Ferrari was a friend. But by 2003, when he knew Walsh and I were still travelling together, the ban was slapped back on for the rest of his Tour-winning years.

It was still an issue at the 2004 Tour. Walsh recently wrote that he was told by someone in our car in Liege that we could not take him because it would threaten co-operation with Armstrong. I can't recall all the facts, nor do I dismiss how Walsh feels about what happened. What I do know is that I did not ask for him to not be in the car.

I had no access to Armstrong. And Walsh was a mate. Despite having argued that with Armstrong in emails, I once had a stand-up over that friendship with his sport director, Johan Bruyneel, and in 2003 with his press officer, Jogi Muller, who said I must choose my friends as he put a ban back on me.

But as Walsh wrote, I did later apologise for how it unfolded in 2004, and I still regret whatever circumstances led to him not following that Tour with us.

My access to Armstrong resumed by chance. When he announced his comeback in late 2008, I found an old email address and sent a message. A few minutes later he responded. His return to racing in 2009 was a huge story, especially in Australia, where he made his comeback at the Tour Down Under.

I knew, too, that for Armstrong's comeback to succeed, he needed to rebuild bridges with the media. Fair enough, I thought. So regular interview access returned, including in late 2009 a visit to Austin, Texas, to follow him for two days on his cancer campaign and interview him about his comeback year, the highlight of which was his third-place Tour finish behind winner Alberto Contador.

He spoke of his disdain for Contador and admitted he fed off feuds and created them to reach his optimal competitive edge. So when he failed to win in 2009 and 2010, I felt he must have been clean. I didn't think he would risk all he and his career stood for by doping to do it.

Fast forward to the aftermath of USADA's verdict that Armstrong doped to win his Tours and during his comeback years. While I have reported on the doping accusations - since then and recently - and Armstrong's responses, I have done so with the aim of being impartial until official evidence is presented. It is rumoured USADA will make its evidence public soon, possibly next week. That could be a lethal blow for Armstrong after last week's launch of The Secret Race, co-written by Dan Coyle and former teammate and confessed doper Tyler Hamilton, which details doping allegations against him.

But if USADA's evidence proves true, I will admit I got it wrong. These are times when everyone in cycling must be ready to acknowledge the errors of their beliefs and judgments if they really want the sport to advance. I am ready.

Rupert Guinness lived in Europe covering cycling from 1987-96. He has covered all of the world's biggest races, including 24 Tours de France.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cycling/ ... z25qb08qq0

[DOC]

so that positive test then, still sounds like a myth to me

[adam]

so that positive test then, still sounds like a myth to me

depends whose fantasy you choose to believe...