Lance and USADA (Page 2)

The test is just a tool.  Passing/failing the test is not determinative as to whether or not an athlete doped.

Where is all the screaming that all these guys who have now admitted to doping be banned for life as well??? 

You must have missed the several previous discussions on this issue.  Don't worry, the screaming is/was there.

. . ., you cant not just throw out the standard.

Why do you keep saying a pass/fail is the standard for whether or not someone is a doper?  It isn't.  It's just a tool.  If a team gets busted with a hotel room full of dope, they are busted.  No need for a pass/fail.

Think of it like this:

Drafting was a bigger deal this year, standards were in place by which to judge if drafting was ocurring, now lets say at the end of the race, they tell PJ your performance "suggest" you drafted, we have no proof, we have no video showing it, no on course judge calling it, but we find you guilty of drafting and will now adjust your time accordingly.  FAIR? 

You keep saying he never "failed" a test and that's the standard.  Well I don't agree, but I'll go with it.

You're actually wrong.  he did fail a test.  He failed a test when he tested positive for a corticosteriod (sp?).  US Postal explained the positive test that it was in a cream that was used to treat saddle sores, so he was not punished for the positive test.

We now know that the US Postal explanation was a pure, 100% lie, total BS.  The testimony of several riders indicate that the team US Postal used the PED that L.A. tested positive for, not in a cream form to treat saddle sores, but rather in pill form as a PED!  One of the affidavits, either Hincapie's or Danielson's specifically called the assertion of the use to treat saddle sores as rideculous, and that this particular drug was specifically used as a PED.

Additionally, you keep talking about "passing" tests, but you don't address the bribery issue?

Additionally, your hypothetical says "no evidence", that FACT is they have evidence.  They have the testimony of Fankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Leonardo Bertagnolli, VolodymyrBileka, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Jorg Jaksche, Floyd Landis, Levie Leipheimer, Christina Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughter, Dave Zabriske and others.  Many of these testify to direct eye witness of L.A.'s use of PED's, discussion of use of PED's, admission to use of PED's, and being pressured to use PED's by L.A. simply to ride for US Postal.

In reality the only thing missing is numerous positive drug tests.  ANd, AND, And the lack of positive tests can be explained through the testimony of the witnesses due to the high level of medical sophistication and money involved in the program specifically designed to beat the tests.

The evidence is overwhelming that US Postal and L.A. had a well desgned program, with medical staff, trainers, and riders, using sophisticated tools, whose sole purpose was to beat drug testing protocols.

Your hypo asserts a drafting penalty with "no evidence", your hypo isn't similar to the evidence in the Armstrong investigation.

A more accurate hypo would be, a guy practices drafting, hires a coach to teach him how to draft more efficiently, hires other riders specifically to help him draft, threatens the other riders with exposure if they rat him out, has 20 or more riders see him draft in the race and report the violation, and when a road marshal comes by the drafting rider slips him a $100 to look the other way.  That's a more accurate description of the relationship to the evidence in the USADA case and your drafting hypo.

Surely that's the end of this thread.

I think some version of this thread will exist indefinitely unless LA flat out says he doped and even then I am not so sure.

So if he "passed" the test because of bribing the testing official then that's OK?  A "passed" test is a "passed" test, regardless of how it was "passed"?

Look, I was a L.A. supporter, and I screamed the he never failed a test montra over and over.  Take the time to read the report, and especially the affidavit of his team mates.  He may have "passed" the tests, but it is clear, if not beyond a reasonable doubt, at least by clear and convincing evidence, that the tests that were "passed", were "passed" as a result of a very sophisticated doping protocal that included regular blood monitoring by a team physician in order to know when to dope, and how long certain PED's would stay in the system, and also how to avoid testing(Like dropping out of a race in order to avoid the anti-doping protocals at the end of a race),  how to beat testing (delaying post race tests, avoiding testers, taking EPO intervenously instead of subcutaniously, urinating just prior to tests and yes, bribery)

I was a HUGE L.A. fan and supporter.  But the USADA report and their evidence at least for me is overwhelming.

I was also used to rely upon the statute of limitations of USADA, and scream how unfair it was.  But when you read the report, and more importantly the affidavits of the riders on his team and others, there is no doubt that this was an ongoing enterprise that extended well after L.A.'s retirment, with continued efforts to hide, discredit, and intimidate those that sought to speak the truth.  Including the wives of riders that were going to come forward.

Read the report and form your own opinion after at least getting all  the information.  Read both sides, the USADA report and L.A.'s attorney's letters about the reports, and decide for yourself.  But at the very least get all the information.

Just jumping in here......  A test is a relevant but not necessary piece of evidence.   Just as you can still be arrested for driving under the influence even wihout a positive "test".  Eyewitness testimony is a valid form of evidence as well.  You may or may not believe it, but some people don't believe test results either

My final thoughts, the "testimony" of other athletes who failed the test and then get the sweetheart deal to testify against the one who didnt fail the test stink to high heaven FOR ME, if i were on a jury their word would be meaningless to me.

Personally I do understand other positions, but I need more direct proof.

Brock,

In your opinion as a prosecutor, if the evidence is "overwhelming" why did the justice department not pursue their case against Lance?

I have not had the time to read the whole report, I trust your judgment that there is probably plenty of evidence, so why did they drop the case just to have the USADA pick the case back up? Any theories?

yes, you ccan be arrested...but what if your blood was tested at the police station and it came back negative?  I don't think that would convict someone of a DUI.

There was a great deal of public backlash against the baseball steriod prosecutions, even though they were actually perjury prosecutions, and the government may have felt that people cared even less about cycling cheats.  Given the woeful state of the budget, spending millions of dollars on a cycling cheat prosecution may not have been politically attractive.

Just my theory.

Good question?  I certainly would have felt pretty good going to trial with the amount and type of evidence. 

My thought is that it had less to do with evidence and more to do with a cost benefit analysis.  (Just an assumption)  Someone looked at the potential cost of the prosecution, the likely results of a conviction (a slap on the hand, maybe, myab house arrest), and in the grand scheme spending how many millions of dollars and how many hundreds of hours of staff time on "cycling".  I mean it is "just cycling".

If I had to guess, there was probably a lot of that going on.  They also may have balanced the Livestrong foundation into that equation in some form or another.

There was a great deal of public backlash against the baseball steriod prosecutions, even though they were actually perjury prosecutions, and the government may have felt that people cared even less about cycling cheats.  Given the woeful state of the budget, spending millions of dollars on a cycling cheat prosecution may not have been politically attractive.

Just my theory.

Good question?  I certainly would have felt pretty good going to trial with the amount and type of evidence. 

My thought is that it had less to do with evidence and more to do with a cost benefit analysis.  (Just an assumption)  Someone looked at the potential cost of the prosecution, the likely results of a conviction (a slap on the hand, maybe, myab house arrest), and in the grand scheme spending how many millions of dollars and how many hundreds of hours of staff time on "cycling".  I mean it is "just cycling".

If I had to guess, there was probably a lot of that going on.  They also may have balanced the Livestrong foundation into that equation in some form or another.

There was a great deal of public backlash against the baseball steriod prosecutions, even though they were actually perjury prosecutions, and the government may have felt that people cared even less about cycling cheats.  Given the woeful state of the budget, spending millions of dollars on a cycling cheat prosecution may not have been politically attractive.

Just my theory.