Lance Armstrong Stripped

[Townsend]

Must be. It's completely ridiculous for them to inject themselves. And at that to inject themselves into the playing of games. Seriously.

100% agree

[Ed W]

What bothers me about the USADA is that they can impose harsh penalties on an athlete, depriving him of the opportunity to compete, depriving him of an income, and trashing his reputation - all without having to meet the same standards as any American court.  We fund the USADA with tax money.  They should have to meet standards for evidence, chain of custody, and the like. 

[Conan71]

I wrote Senator Coburn the day Lance announced he was done fighting the charges from USADA.  Ironically, his reply came the same day USADA released their "report".  I simply made the point the government should not be funding an institution which doesn't even observe one of our most basic civil rights: due process.  I also mentioned I thought Travis Tygart's obsession with a now retired cyclist was absurd.  Here's his reply.  I suspect he meant to say he agreed the government should NOT be subsidizing an organization which could find other funding sources.

,

Thank you for emailing me your concerns about investigations by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) into Lance Armstrong regarding illegal performance enhancing drugs. It is good to hear from you.

I appreciate your concerns about the actions taken by USADA against Mr. Armstrong. Despite the implication of the organization's name, however, the USADA is not a government entity. Therefore, the action it takes is not under the purview of the federal government or Congress. That said, Congress recognizes the role of the organization in testing U.S. Olympic athletes, and it is partly funded by a federal grant through the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). I agree with you that the United States government should spend its money subsidizing an organization that could easily be funded by private organizations, including professional sports associations that bring in billions of dollars in revenue each year.

I am sorry you are frustrated by the actions of USADA and believe they are tarnishing the reputation of Mr. Armstrong. I encourage you to contact USADA to express your concerns to them, and you can find contact information on the organization's webpage here: http://www.usada.org/contact/.

Thank you again for contacting me, and for your words of encouragement regarding my work to eliminate government waste. Best wishes.


Sincerely,
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator

[cannon_fodder]

100% disagree.

If performance enhancing drugs are allowed the game is suddenly shifted to see who is willing to take the most  health risks to win.  A perverted notion where the most reckless always wins in the short term.  Not to mention teaching everyone else you cannot aucceed without cheating.

Drugs for pros.  Better do them in college to prepare.  If you want a college schollie you had better shoot up in high school.

I am generally in favor of legalizing drugs, but keep them out of my sports.

[cannon_fodder]

* not saying i like the current enforcement system

[Teatownclown]

100% disagree.

If performance enhancing drugs are allowed the game is suddenly shifted to see who is willing to take the most  health risks to win.  A perverted notion where the most reckless always wins in the short term.  Not to mention teaching everyone else you cannot aucceed without cheating.

Drugs for pros.  Better do them in college to prepare.  If you want a college schollie you had better shoot up in high school.

I am generally in favor of legalizing drugs, but keep them out of my sports.

The policing...it's the policing...why do you want the police to spend time on this? How much was spent in time and money on Lance's cheating? It should not be cheating...it should be referred to as enhancing.

Roger Clemons has decided to play minor league ball in the hopes that 5 years from now he can get into the Baseball Hall of Fame. I believe Pete Roses' non acceptance reduced the number of bettors in baseball. Or maybe the offenders just don't get caught. Whatever, that's a bit different than juicing. The users are everywhere....

[erfalf]

100% disagree.

If performance enhancing drugs are allowed the game is suddenly shifted to see who is willing to take the most  health risks to win.  A perverted notion where the most reckless always wins in the short term.  Not to mention teaching everyone else you cannot aucceed without cheating.

Drugs for pros.  Better do them in college to prepare.  If you want a college schollie you had better shoot up in high school.

I am generally in favor of legalizing drugs, but keep them out of my sports.

Considering professional sports are businesses, wouldn't the players union generally be opposed to something that was as harmful as performance enhancing drugs purport to be? Or the owners for that matter. Allowing their employees to do something that could cause as many problems as these drugs do would be bad for business in the long run I would think. I know some of this may not apply to amateur and individual sports like cycling and such. But even in amateur sports, the stigma of drugged players getting injured often and possibly some deaths, that's got to be bad for business, with high likelihoods of being shut down all together.

If we are comparing apples to apples, the government regulates many other aspects of workplace safety, why would it be out of their realm in this case? I'm not saying I think they should necessarily, just looking at it from a different perspective.

[Townsend]

With the 7 Tour De France titles stripped, anyone think this will forever sully the sport, lead to any major changes?

[heironymouspasparagus]

With the 7 Tour De France titles stripped, anyone think this will forever sully the sport, lead to any major changes?

Everyone knows Lance won those titles.  Doesn't matter what some bureaucratic functionary says...

Especially since ALL of the top 20 or 30 were doing the same thing, it was a level playing field, so it is comparing apples to apples, and Lance was the best.

[Conan71]

With the 7 Tour De France titles stripped, anyone think this will forever sully the sport, lead to any major changes?

Really the change has already happened.  At least according to this year's winner, Bradley Wiggins.  People were characterizing this year's TDF as somewhat lack-luster.  Wiggins said that's to be expected from now on.  Unless someone has figured out a way to mask the doping that UCI or anyone else hasn't found out about yet, supposedly the entire peloton is clean these days.  They've made the stakes high enough if you get caught to outweigh any benefit which might result.

I really don't get the point in stripping the titles, and basically saying there was no winner for seven years now.  We all know who won, and if he doped, that was the culture in cycling at the time, apparently.  I don't condone what he and his teammates did and I'm also not happy that Lance apparently lied all this time.

Probably what irritates me most though is this really is a great example of what a ludicrous joke our drug policy has become (USADA is funded in part by the ONDCP budget).  As a fiscal conservative I can honestly say the war on drugs is a huge waste of taxpayer money.

[sgrizzle]

Unless someone has figured out a way to mask the doping that UCI or anyone else hasn't found out about yet, supposedly the entire peloton is clean these days. 

Armstrong passed every single test.

I don't condone what he and his teammates did and I'm also not happy that Lance apparently lied all this time.

So you've flipped on him now too?

[Teatownclown]

What is hip? I guess lying. Seems half the country condones lies with disregard for facts and consistency.

Lance will always maintain his greatness albeit the asstrick.

[Conan71]

Armstrong passed every single test.

So you've flipped on him now too?

No I haven't flipped on him, but the USADA report (admittedly I've not read it) seems to have been damning enough that Nike, Anhueiser-Busch, and Trek Bicycles all dropped his personal sponsorship deals a week after USADA published their report stating they believe he was involved in doping.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/aug/24/us-anti-doping-agency-statement-lance-armstrong

Also the revelations from George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer that they doped and apparently testified against Lance is pretty damning in my mind.  Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis have severe credibility issues.  Hincapie stood to gain nothing by finally admitting doping, he retired after the US Cycling Challenge in August so it's not like he needed a lenient deal to continue cycling.  Leipheimer is suspended from competition for six months and his contract with Quickstep was terminated over it last week, he came up as a major loser on this one.

I agree, I'm mystified as well since Lance claimed to have passed over 500 tests in over 20 years.  There's "accounts" out there that he's tested positive for cortisone but produced a prescription for a cortisone cream he used for essentially diaper rash that cyclists get when they ride as much as pros do.  One of my Lance hater friends has posted a story before detailing all the "positive" tests over the years, but I don't have time to look it up and really don't feel it's worth posting.

I want to believe he didn't dope, but it's looking more like he did considering the reaction of his sponsors and, ultimately, UCI today.

(Reuters) - Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life on Monday after the International Cycling Union (UCI) ratified the United States Anti-Doping Agency's (USADA) sanctions against the American.

The long-awaited decision has left cycling facing its "greatest crisis" according to UCI president Pat McQuaid and has destroyed Armstrong's last hope of clearing his name.

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. Lance Armstrong deserves to be forgotten in cycling," McQuaid told a news conference as he outlined how cycling, long battered by doping problems for decades, would have to start all over again.

"The UCI wishes to begin that journey on that path forward today by confirming that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that it will recognize the sanction that USADA has imposed.

"I was sickened by what I read in the USADA report."

On October 10, USADA published a report into Armstrong which alleged the now-retired rider had been involved in the "most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen".

Armstrong, 41, had previously elected not to contest USADA charges, prompting USADA to propose his punishment pending confirmation from cycling's world governing body.

Former Armstrong team mates at his U.S. Postal and Discovery Channel outfits, where he won his seven successive Tour titles from 1999 to 2005, testified against him and themselves and were given reduced bans by the American authorities.

"It wasn't until the intervention of federal agents...they called these riders in and they put down a gun and badge on the table in front of them and said 'you're now facing a grand jury you must tell the truth' that those riders broke down," McQuaid added.

Armstrong, widely accepted as one of the greatest cyclists of all time given he fought back from cancer to dominate the sport, has always denied doping and says he has never failed a doping test.

He said he had stopped contesting the charges after years of probes and rumors because "there comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough'".

WIDESPREAD DOPING

McQuaid, who faced criticism from several quarters for his and the UCI's handling of the affair, said he would not be resigning.

"Cycling has a future. This is not the first time cycling has reached a crossroads or that it has had to begin anew," he said in front of a packed room full of journalists and television cameras.

"When I took over (as president) in 2005 I made the fight against doping my priority. I acknowledged cycling had a culture of doping. Cycling has come a long way. I have no intention of resigning as president of the UCI.

"I am sorry we couldn't catch every damn one of them red handed and throw them out of the sport."

Other issues such as the potential re-awarding of Armstrong's Tour titles and the matter of prize money will be discussed by the UCI Management Committee on Friday.

Tour director Christian Prudhomme has said he believes no rider should inherit the titles given doping was so widespread among the peloton at the time but McQuaid made it clear the decision rested with his organization, not the Tour.

USADA charged five people over the doping ring. Doctors Luis Garcia del Moral and Michele Ferrari and trainer Pepe Marti have been banned for life while Armstrong's mentor Johan Bruyneel has chosen to go to arbitration along with doctor Pedro Celaya.

Armstrong's last hope that the UCI might not ratify USADA's ruling sprang from long-running dispute between the two bodies over who should handle the case.

In statements issued at the news conference, the UCI continued the feud with USADA despite ratifying its decision.

"Even apart from any discussion on jurisdiction, it would have been better that the evidence collected by USADA had been assessed by a neutral body or person who was not involved in collecting the evidence and prosecuting the defendant," it said.

"This would have avoided both the criticism of a witch hunt against Mr Armstrong and the criticism that the UCI had a conflict of interest."

The UCI also said it had dope tested Armstrong 218 times and the fact he never tested positive and "beat the system" means that other organizations such as the World Anti-Doping Agency should share the responsibility of accepting the results.

USADA chief Travis Tygart issued a statement approving of the UCI's action but warning that more needed to be done.

"Despite its prior opposition to USADA's investigation into doping on the U.S. Postal Service cycling team and within the sport, USADA is glad that the UCI finally reversed course in this case and has made the credible decision available to it," he said.

"This determination to uphold USADA's decision on the U.S. Postal Services case does not by itself clean up cycling nor does it ensure the sport has moved past the obstacles that allowed doping to flourish in the age of EPO and blood transfusions.

"For cycling to truly move forward and for the world to know what went on in cycling, it is essential that an independent and meaningful Truth and Reconciliation Commission be established so that the sport can fully unshackle itself from the past."

In recent years the Tour de France and cycling had looked to be winning the battle against dopers but when asked if the sport would one day be free of the scourge, McQuaid answered: "No."

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) said it would take its time to digest the news amid suggestions that Armstrong could be stripped of his 2000 Sydney Olympics time trial bronze.

"We will study UCI's response to the USADA report and await to receive their full decision including further potential sanctions against Lance Armstrong as well as regarding any ramifications to his case," an IOC official said.

(Additional reporting by Brian Homewood, Toby Davis, Mitch Phillips, Gene Cherry Karolos Grohmann and Justin Palmer; Editing by Mark Meadows)

What is interesting is Pat McQuaid was adamant there was no way Armstrong doped or bribed the UCI to cover up a positive test in 2001 as alleged by Landis and Hamilton.

In his book, The Secret Race, published in the US on Wednesday, Hamilton claims that Armstrong told him he had failed a doping test before the Tour of Switzerland in 2001 and that the International Cycling Union had covered it up, a claim the sport's governing body has consistently denied since it was raised by Floyd Landis and then Hamilton for the first time last year.

"What happened next was a call was made from cycling's body, UCI, that this test should go no further, this matter should end here," said Hamilton's ghost-writer, Daniel Coyle, in a television interview on Wednesday.

"There was a meeting between Armstrong, his coach and the lab and then there was also a $125,000 [£78,500] donation from Armstrong to the UCI."

The UCI, when answering the original Landis claims in 2010, confirmed that it had received a $125,000 donation from Armstrong towards drug testing equipment but flatly denied that it was in return for turning a blind eye to a positive test.

"We've contacted the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time," said UCI president Pat McQuaid when answering the original allegations from Landis. "I have a statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say.

"The AFLD [French Anti-Doping Agency] had three positives for EPO in the UCI account between 2001 and 2003. All the reports were sent to the International Olympic Committee.

"In the Lausanne laboratory there were 18 positive tests for EPO for the UCI between 2001 and 2003. All analysis was sent to the IOC and Swiss Olympic Committee.

"I also have a letter from WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] that states from January 2004, every positive result for UCI also went to them. I also have a report from the Tour de Suisse from 2001 which states that there was no doping case in 2001.

"All this information supports what the UCI has always stated: that there is no way that the UCI or its former president Hein Verbruggen could have accepted a bribe. It's just not possible."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9524361/Lance-Armstrong-failed-drugs-test-in-2001-claims-former-team-mate-Tyler-Hamilton-in-new-book.html

[sgrizzle]

No I haven't flipped on him, but the USADA report (admittedly I've not read it) seems to have been damning enough that Nike, Anhueiser-Busch, and Trek Bicycles all dropped his personal sponsorship deals a week after USADA published their report stating they believe he was involved in doping.

Doesn't matter if they think he is guilty or not, why would they want to sponsor a retired athlete who refused to dispute allegations that he cheated?

[Conan71]

Doesn't matter if they think he is guilty or not, why would they want to sponsor a retired athlete who refused to dispute allegations that he cheated?

Because he's been a very bankable name.  He refused to appeal USADA's allegations in August.  No sponsors dropped him until a week after the report was published and he stepped down as chairman of Livestrong.  His last post on his FB page on Oct. 2, he was still in good graces w/ Nike:

Had a great coupla days in Portland working with my great partners Nike. Awesome to see the show of support on livestrongday. 16 yrs!
Headed back 2 Austin now 2 celebrate with family/friends. There were days I never thought I'd see 2012. Blessed to be this side of the grass

I will say this, I believe a former team trainer and doctor have chosen to fight USADA.  That, to me, could be a sign there's not as much to it as USADA believes.

I don't know that I will ever waste the time reading the USADA report cover-to-cover.  Friends of mine who have read into it say it really didn't look good for Lance and these guys have always been Lance supporters.  Only Lance knows for sure if he did or didn't or whether there was a large scale conspiracy to ruin his good name. 

I still think he's one of the most amazing athletes who ever lived and he's done far more good for cycling than harm.  He's also a great advocate for cancer survivors and has inspired me to live a much healthier life.  I'll never turn against him, I simply think there's a better probability he doped than not based on what I've observed happen over the last couple of weeks.

And whether or not Lance is guilty, I still think it's an abomination that an agency like USADA can plod along ruining lives and ignoring something so basic to being an American as due process.  Other thing is, why is it relevant 7 years after his last tour victory?