The Legacy of Lance Armstrong?

[Moses Botbol]

Yup, karma is a son-of-a... Doper or not, to me he won those Tours and will always be the winner regardless of any revision to the history books. Just shows how much theses cyclists have had hanging over their shoulders to protect their sport. How much it cost Landis and Hamilton and how much it could cost Armstrong. They have all gone down the same road with the same defense until they are cornered. I don't think we'll hear what we want from Armstrong until he is old and grey. Have to say I do admire their tenacity to "tow the party line".

[Rob C.]

I'm not saying he's innocent. I'm saying he's not guilty because it hasn't been proven.

We still seem to be in the position where people's opinion on this is largely a function of what they believed before Lance made his decision not to "contest".

We'll see what comes out over the next few months/years.....i suspect there's a lot - more than just Hamilton and Landis (who are easy for Lance to dismiss) - and that Lance knew this....but time will tell.

One thing to remember, however. The headlines are about Lance, but USADA's case is NOT just about Lance. Amongst those involved are current (albeit retiring) cyclists and, perhaps more importantly, current team managers and doctors who are still working within the peloton. Making sure that these people are banned from cycling is, in my opinion, an unequivocally good thing.

Doper or not, to me he won those Tours and will always be the winner regardless of any revision to the history books.

Who cares? If he did, it was during a period when everyone was doing it.

Agree. I don't see the point in trying to strip him of his wins. In one year all top ten finishers in the Tour have now either tested positive or been sanctioned in some way for doping. Ullrich, who finshed second to Lance a number of times is currently serving a doping sanction for when he was racing. What's the point?

This is about the only area where i can see that i disagree with Andy on this whole affair. I do so for three reasons:

i) Although most of the GC contenders were doping, you are not seeing seeing a level playing field because not every athlete is willing to risk as much (given that there are penalties for cheating) - while tests were inadequate, there were still risks involved. A good regime also took a lot of money and organisation. Some had the means to do it better than others and were willing to risk it - that is, to an extent, what you are seeing in the results (and not the "best" from an equal starting point).

ii) drugs affect people differently. Because we are mainly talking about red blood cell manipulation, there's also the fact that the most naturally gifted stand to gain the least - particularly after hematocrit testing (volume percentage of red cells in blood) came in and riders just dosed to keep their blood values at the maximum legal limit. A massive part of these Grand Tours is the natural ability to recover from day to day, an element that this type of doping hugely negates.

iii) this is falling into the same trap that permeated the peloton - doping was accepted on the basis that everyone was doig it: a "necessary evil". Yet there were cyclists who faced that plight - essentially the choice of furthering their career (with perhaps great fame and riches) or completely failing as a cyclist - and decided to turn away. Bassons is a good example. Vaughters ultimately did the same, and now runs his own team on the basis that no young cyclist should be forced into that decision.

So the critical point, from my perspective, is not who won the prize in Lance's place, but simply an acknowledgement that Lance did not win it himself in any meaningful sense (most cyclists i know just put a mental asterisk next to all winners between LeMond and Sastre anyway...)

[Eric Menchen]

What everyone has to remember is USADA is a sporting "trial" and is not bound by any laws other than their own for the sport (and WADA's as well). Yes, maybe not fair but remember there was no rules on this type of thing back then. Their rules about doping are relatively new.

1. So ex post facto laws are bad, but ex post facto rules are o.k.?
2. I personally think Lance doped. I also personally think the director of the USADA has clearly indicated a bias with his public statements against Lance that are inappropriate for someone of his position. I also question why the USADA, which receives $10 million in funding from the U.S. government, has spent so much time on this. What really is their business in pursuing a past winner of a bike race in France?
3. How can they ban Lance from competing in triathlons, which they did earlier this year while Lance was still fighting them, before completing their process?

[Andy Velebil]

A massive part of these Grand Tours is the natural ability to recover from day to day, an element that this type of doping hugely negates.

Not actually true. A bit hard to explain in a short post, but if you read Tyler's book it gives pretty lengthy and detailed information about how the body responds in a long stage race with and without dope. Doping, when done right, has a huge effect on how one recovers and continues to ride.

[Andy Velebil]

What everyone has to remember is USADA is a sporting "trial" and is not bound by any laws other than their own for the sport (and WADA's as well). Yes, maybe not fair but remember there was no rules on this type of thing back then. Their rules about doping are relatively new.

1. So ex post facto laws are bad, but ex post facto rules are o.k.?
2. I personally think Lance doped. I also personally think the director of the USADA has clearly indicated a bias with his public statements against Lance that are inappropriate for someone of his position. I also question why the USADA, which receives $10 million in funding from the U.S. government, has spent so much time on this. What really is their business in pursuing a past winner of a bike race in France?
3. How can they ban Lance from competing in triathlons, which they did earlier this year while Lance was still fighting them, before completing their process?

My point is people are equating USADA to laws of the USA with regard to a "fair trial." It's stupid as an administrative hearing for USADA (or even the UCI for that matter) has nothing to due with a finding of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is needed in a court of law.

My personal opinion was once the Federal investigation got derailed by politics USADA stepped in to continue what the Fed's didn't do. It was no secret that Lance's foundation sent a lobbyist to work over some politicians regarding the Fed's case.

As for #3, they can suspend him from competing pending the outcome of his hearing. This happens in almost every sport where a doping charge is pending. It's also what occurs with any alleged doping violation under USADA, the UCI, ETC. Hence, why he was prevented from doing the triathlon.

[Rob C.]

A massive part of these Grand Tours is the natural ability to recover from day to day, an element that this type of doping hugely negates.

Not actually true. A bit hard to explain in a short post, but if you read Tyler's book it gives pretty lengthy and detailed information about how the body responds in a long stage race with and without dope. Doping, when done right, has a huge effect on how one recovers and continues to ride.

The words in bold are exactly the point i was making. And so the advantage of those who otherwise have the best natural ability to recover is negated.

[Rob C.]

The government tried to make a case and failed. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't exist against LA or the government wouldn't have dropped its case.

Remember also that the federal investigation - regardless of the reasons it was dropped - was looking for different things (case was centered on financial fraud, not performance-enhancing drug use per se, and proving that U.S. Postal Service sponsorship funds were diverted to subsidize organized doping and that this was led by Armstrong). What USADA was asserting, as i understand it, was more limited and therefore easier to show "clear and concise" evidence of (the standard of evidence that they were obliged to meet).

The Novitsky investigation was the most high profile, but not only, US government investigation. Depending on the evidence that comes out from the USADA case once they are finished with Bruyneel et al., i have read that it is not out of the question that the DOJ might intervene in the whistleblower (qui tam) case launched by Landis in 2010 (and which is apparently still live, but sealed).

[Glenn E.]

Andy, I find it interesting that for some reason you trust Tyler's word - in a for-profit tell-all book - over Lance's. I realize that you're much closer to the sport than I am, but from the outside the dog pile on Lance from his former teammates looks a lot like jealousy (from those who thought they deserved a shot too) or in other cases sour grapes (from those he treated poorly).

Political pressure or not, the case was dropped and the charges have never been proven. Because of that the case against Lance will always be suspect.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Moses Botbol]

Andy, I find it interesting that for some reason you trust Tyler's word - in a for-profit tell-all book - over Lance's.

I'll take Tyler's word over Lance any day of the week.

[Andy Velebil]

Andy, I find it interesting that for some reason you trust Tyler's word - in a for-profit tell-all book - over Lance's. I realize that you're much closer to the sport than I am, but from the outside the dog pile on Lance from his former teammates looks a lot like jealousy (from those who thought they deserved a shot too) or in other cases sour grapes (from those he treated poorly).

Political pressure or not, the case was dropped and the charges have never been proven. Because of that the case against Lance will always be suspect.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

I can understand this, but the question remains. Lance has fought tooth-and-nail every minute accusation against him. Now that USADA has first hand testimony of PED use (and distribution it seems) Lance makes some noise about fighting it then when he loses his attempt to stop USADA from proceeding all of a sudden he stops fighting. THAT is what tells me Tyler (and everyone else's stories) have truth to them. He doesn't want the truth to come out in any type of formal court/arbitration process.

And yes, my involvement with the sport from a very young age does allow me more insight and prior history of what has gone on over the years than most people, but that doesn't change what is going on now with Lance. One just has to keep an open mind about what info is now out there, something hard to do since Lance has this celebrity status. And BTW, Tyler doesn't have sour grapes against Lance. He simply was one of the few to break the silence about what has gone on in pro cycling. And part of that involved Lance since they were on the same team and apparently used PED's together. this gets me on another topic...

What I don't understand about people is how they automatically accuse someone of trying to get revenge, having sour grapes, etc. when they level accusations against others. These are people, cyclists in this case, who not only witnessed it but admittedly took part in it as well. In this case it was with Lance. So that makes them "sour grapes." That is ridiculous.

[Glenn E.]

What I don't understand about people is how they automatically accuse someone of trying to get revenge, having sour grapes, etc. when they level accusations against others. These are people, cyclists in this case, who not only witnessed it but admittedly took part in it as well. In this case it was with Lance. So that makes them "sour grapes." That is ridiculous.

But you have to admit that in some of the cases it does sound an awful lot like sour grapes or professional jealousy. Lance was incredibly successful for a decade in a sport in which celebrity status can be achieved in, apparently, just a couple of years. He also apparently ruled with an iron fist and kept many other riders who could have been successful from reaching the pinnacle of their sport. Sour grapes are natural.

Note that it may have appeared that I was accusing Tyler of sour grapes; I was not. I was making a general statement about the people in the very highest level of the sport, including the press and in particular the French press. I could have been more clear about that. However, Tyler is still writing a book to make a profit and so the stories therein are likely not 100% accurate. I think they've likely been embellished, if not by Tyler than by an editor or hidden ghost writer.

[Andy Velebil]

What I don't understand about people is how they automatically accuse someone of trying to get revenge, having sour grapes, etc. when they level accusations against others. These are people, cyclists in this case, who not only witnessed it but admittedly took part in it as well. In this case it was with Lance. So that makes them "sour grapes." That is ridiculous.

But you have to admit that in some of the cases it does sound an awful lot like sour grapes or professional jealousy. Lance was incredibly successful for a decade in a sport in which celebrity status can be achieved in, apparently, just a couple of years. He also apparently ruled with an iron fist and kept many other riders who could have been successful from reaching the pinnacle of their sport. Sour grapes are natural.

Note that it may have appeared that I was accusing Tyler of sour grapes; I was not. I was making a general statement about the people in the very highest level of the sport, including the press and in particular the French press. I could have been more clear about that. However, Tyler is still writing a book to make a profit and so the stories therein are likely not 100% accurate. I think they've likely been embellished, if not by Tyler than by an editor or hidden ghost writer.

I would urge you to pick up his book and read it yourself. Having just finished it I can tell you it was written in a very matter-of-fact way. While Lance was included in it, so were other riders as well. Not to mention Team Directors, Teams themselves, Team Doctors, etc. who directly or indirectly where involved with providing and/or encouraging PED use. Matter of fact there are inserts from other former pro's as well, including Andy Hampsten, one of the most well regarded cyclists of his time. They obviously could have included a whole lot more but it appears they took the steps to only include those things that Tyler clearly rememebered and what could be authenticated by the co-writer as best as possible. This even included the co-auther tracking down and finding a person whom Tyler could only recall his first name and some other small details about him being in Italy.

The couple of times he speculates in the book it is clearly stated that "such-and-such" was his personal opinion only and can't be verified. Seriously, read the book and then tell me your opinion of the matter.

[Rob C.]

But there's a lot of truth to what Glenn says - Landis, Tyler....Armstrong and his PR team could overcome accusations from them (though as i'm ploughing through Hamilton's book, there's a level of detail/specificity there that would make it quite uncomfortable).

But i think USADA had some others - probably including Hincapie (if his self-withdrawal from Olympics eligibility and rather non-committal response to media questions in TdF are anything to go by) - that are probably beyond the "sour grapes" accusation and much more damaging if their evidence ever saw light of day. Will be interesting to see how this develops....

[Eric Menchen]

What everyone has to remember is USADA is a sporting "trial" and is not bound by any laws other than their own for the sport (and WADA's as well). Yes, maybe not fair but remember there was no rules on this type of thing back then. Their rules about doping are relatively new.

1. So ex post facto laws are bad, but ex post facto rules are o.k.?
2. I personally think Lance doped. I also personally think the director of the USADA has clearly indicated a bias with his public statements against Lance that are inappropriate for someone of his position. I also question why the USADA, which receives $10 million in funding from the U.S. government, has spent so much time on this. What really is their business in pursuing a past winner of a bike race in France?
3. How can they ban Lance from competing in triathlons, which they did earlier this year while Lance was still fighting them, before completing their process?

My point is people are equating USADA to laws of the USA with regard to a "fair trial." It's stupid as an administrative hearing for USADA (or even the UCI for that matter) has nothing to due with a finding of "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is needed in a court of law.

I understand that rules governing sport and their adjudication are not the same as a criminal or even civil court of law. But that doesn't invalidate my points above. It applies to my third point, but it still isn't clear to me as I haven't seen the rules governing the triathlons Lance was competing in. If the commissioner of baseball (MLB) wants to ban a player from competing for using drugs, I know there are clear rules, contract language, etc. that govern this. Now how does the USADA apply to the Tour de France?

[Rob C.]

USADA's summary (200 pages...) of the 1000 pages of evidence they are turning over to UCI and WADA.

For Lance, i would imagine that Hincapie's affidavit will be the one that is hard to discredit.

[Moses Botbol]

USADA's summary (200 pages...) of the 1000 pages of evidence they are turning over to UCI and WADA.

For Lance, i would imagine that Hincapie's affidavit will be the one that is hard to discredit.

He probably won't respond much to George's affidavit except to say George was coerced into admitting his own PED use and was granted a lighter sentence if he cooperated.
Lance has few options; no more comments on this, blast George, or admit guilt. The first one is what I bet he’ll do or should do if he wants to hold on to his legacy. So, Simeoni was right all this time…

[Rob C.]

Lance has few options; no more comments on this, blast George, or admit guilt

Hmmm...will be interesting to see what happens now with the Landis case against Lance (currently on hold, but still live?), and whether DOJ will now step in to support it. I must admit i'm not familiar with the intricacies of how these "whistleblower" cases work, but i am told by people who are that it is a possibility.

[Rob C.]

Now how does the USADA apply to the Tour de France?

In a nutshell, because both national drug organisations (eg: USADA) and organisations such as UCI (which, as the governing body for international cycling, has jurisdiction over the Tour) are signed up to the WADA code. The WADA code stipulates who has jurisdiction over an investigation in various circumstances (and WADA were very supportive of USADA's claim to jurisdiction during this process) and how any findings of such an investigation are cross-applied to all other WADA signatories. (at least, this is my understanding).

How can they ban Lance from competing in triathlons, which they did earlier this year while Lance was still fighting them, before completing their process?

In terms of the triathlon ban, i believe it was a clause in the relevant triathlon governing body's anti-doping code stating that an athlete is not eligible to compete in events while facing charges (i.e. it was not USADA that specifically banned him, it was the rules of the relevant triathlon governing body that prevented him).

[Andy Velebil]

To clarify even more from Rob's statements as it's a little bit complicated even if you're heavily involved in the sport. As everything sorta blurs together in a bureaucratic mess.

Every Pro cyclist is first and foremost governed by their respective countries national organization. In this case USA Cycling issues US riders (lance, tyler, Hincapie, etc) their pro license. As such, and also being part of the UCI, they are also then governed by the UCI depending on what races they race in and where.

WADA is simply the world wide anti-doping organization. Think of it as a type of United Nations. All the major player countries belong and they come up with minimum guidelines on what is banned or not. Individual countries also have their own anti-doping organizations. In the USA it's USADA. They are free to make a more stringent dope list than WADA, but generally everyone just uses the list that WADA comes up with (why reinvent the wheel).

These US riders are governed by USADA when they compete in USA Cycling races and if they're found positive by another testing organization. When they compete in UCI races, UCI generally is in charge of dope testing under WADA rules. However, the UCI can and has in the past relinquished testing control to organizations other than those under WADA for certain races. If a rider is found positive under the UCI race, then typically the UCI is the one to initiate and impose a sanction. But not always. Vise-versa if the rider is competing in a non-UCI race, the local/national federation can take up the prosecution responsibilities but generally refers it to the rider's national federation.

Generally everyone accepts each others sanctions given to a rider. However, they all reserve the right to appeal to CAS another federations imposed sanction (hence why the UCI is now reviewing what USADA did). They have a certain amount of time to review it and ask for an appeal (WADA also has the same right).

Then there is CAS, the sporting appeal board in Switzerland that generally governs most of the world's Pro's if you want to appeal your sporting sanction. This gets even more complicated so I'll stop there.

[Moses Botbol]

Lance's last words, "Et tu Geórgios?"