-
Has the IRS Already Seized Your Medical Records?
May 20, 2013 | 4 comments
-
The Grand Old Poseurs
May 13, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Obamacare Pimps Smear Lipstick on Another Pig
May 6, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?
April 29, 2013 | 88 comments
-
GOP at Fault for Obamacare Train Wreck?
April 22, 2013 | 106 comments
Another Perspective
Lance Versus the Losers
A man who has never tested positive for any performance enhancing drug is stripped of his titles?
Many hoped the “get Lance Armstrong” movement had finally died last February when the FDA abandoned its protracted investigation into the legendary cyclist’s alleged “doping.” The embarrassing absence of evidence that Armstrong had engaged in any proscribed activity, plus pressure from lawmakers demanding to know what the investigation had to do with the FDA’s core mission, forced its monomaniacal chief investigator to drop it. But this was not good enough for some of Armstrong’s antagonists. Travis Tygart, the CEO of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), issued a Captain Ahab-like vow: “Our investigation… is continuing, and we look forward to obtaining the information developed during the federal investigation.”
Last Friday, Tygart gleefully announced that his agency had brought down its quarry. It would strip Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and permanently ban him from competitive cycling. Earlier in the week, Armstrong had decided not to participate in arbitration with Tygart’s agency because it was an obviously rigged process: “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.” Based on his refusal to cooperate with its inquisition, USADA immediately rendered its verdict that Armstrong was a doper and a cheat.
If you’re not familiar with USADA, its website describes the agency as follows: “The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency… is the national anti-doping organization for the Olympic movement in the United States. The U.S. Congress recognized USADA as ‘the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States.’” It also claims to be a “non-governmental agency,” but it will probably not come as a surprise that it is funded in part by your tax dollars. You will also note, by the way, that USADA’s description of its mission ends with the words “in the United States.” As this suggests, it isn’t immediately obvious that the agency’s jurisdiction gives it the authority to revoke titles awarded in a European bicycle race.
This is a distinction that was not lost on the International Cycling Union (UCI), the governing body for international sports cycling and the entity that administered doping tests while Armstrong competed. Knowing that he never failed any of these tests, UCI has indicated that it is not prepared to merely rubberstamp USADA’s precipitous action: “Article 8.3 of the WADC [World Anti-Doping Code] states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr. Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken. Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make.”
UCI had previously expressed concerns about the fairness of the USADA investigation. In July, its President wrote, “UCI does not feel comfortable… in terms of due process and even in terms of ethics that are pushed through by pleading the rules of the UCI.” USADA’s Tygart, responded to this concern by accusing UCI of participating in a vast conspiracy to prevent the truth about Armstrong from seeing daylight: “UCI and the participants in the conspiracy who cheated sport with dangerous performance enhancing drugs to win have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired.… The participants in the conspiracy have lashed out in the press, gone to Congress and filed a lawsuit to avoid a public display of the evidence.”
These hysterical statements, in addition to suggesting that Tygart is a power-mad paranoiac, beg the following question: What new evidence does USADA possess that was unavailable to the FDA? Well, as it happens, the answer to that question remains a mystery. Tygart has declined to provide Armstrong’s attorneys with the evidence he claims to have gathered against their client: “[They] haven’t been allowed to see the evidence against him, including witness names and any expert analysis.” Moreover, many of the allegations involve races that occurred so long ago that they fall outside of USADA’s eight-year statute of limitations. Tygart, however, says that these time limits don’t apply to Armstrong because he continues “to deny drug use.”
Tygart is obviously so anxious to bring Armstrong down that he refuses to adhere to universally accepted rules of due process or even to abide by the guidelines established by his own agency. This is why Armstrong finally threw up his hands and refused to continue with the charade. And, as if to confirm USADA’s determination to find Armstrong guilty regardless of the evidence, Tygart responded thus: “The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses.… Mr. Armstrong was invited to meet with USADA and be truthful about his time on the USPS team but he refused.” In other words, Tygart was perfectly willing to give Armstrong a fair trial before hanging him.
Although Tygart declines to provide the names of his witnesses, the only people who could be in a position to know would be former teammates and a few of the countless cyclists Armstrong defeated in the Tour de France as well as hundreds of other races. Moreover, unlike Armstrong, some of these teammates and competitors have failed drug tests and lost their titles. Several, like the disgraced Floyd Landis, have nursed grudges against Armstrong for years. These people are, to put it bluntly, the losers. And, as Tracee Hamilton succinctly phrases it in the Washington Post, “People lie. Blood and urine usually don’t.” Lance Armstrong has been tested for drugs more than any other athlete in history, and he has never failed a test — not once.
As Hamilton goes on to ask, “What is the point of drug testing?” If Armstrong’s perfect record of passing such tests can be ignored simply because some monomaniac at the FDA or a paranoiac from USADA can find a few people to testify against him, who is safe from vindictive losers?
About the Author
David Catron is a health care revenue cycle expert who has spent more than twenty years working for and consulting with hospitals and medical practices. He has an MBA from the University of Georgia and blogs at Health Care BS.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (87) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David Catron
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/27/lance-versus-the-losers
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 8.27.12 @ 7:08AM
In the end, Lance Armstrong will be proved innocent, and I suspect that putting pressure on Floyd Landis, who IS a cheat and has been convicted of same, would start the unraveling of the whole charade. Nobody believes that Armstrong has singlehandedly found the holy grail of drug masking elixirs -- nor that in the time when he was being hounded day and night by people whose only goal was to tear him down, he brazenly considered himself immune to examination and used PE drugs in the face of the world. That to me sounds like something Floyd Landis would do.
I am backing Lance Armstrong. God will get his persecuters.
pogybait| 8.27.12 @ 9:03AM
The issue is not Floyd Landis or Lance Armstrong but rather the USADA which believes that most losers contribute to society as a whole and winners take it away. In the mind of the progressive, being a winner is unethical because he didn't win that. After all shouldn't the term winner be removed from Armstrong and the term disproportionally successful participant be applied?.
aquanomics| 8.27.12 @ 10:29AM
Thank you and thanks pogybait. I'm saddened by the number of people ready to flush LAnce Armstrong down the gurgler WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
Pundits should view his workout videos on youtube -- he is a monster of the best order!
Mistral| 8.27.12 @ 4:42PM
No, on the contrary, Armstrong has chosen not to go to arbitration where he could have defended himself with his very highly paid legal team. decision not to do this is an indication of guilt more than his allegation of 'witch-hunt" that is candidly nonsensical.
sickofit5| 8.27.12 @ 5:58PM
Yea, and the result of him doing that would be like Romney releasing all of his tax returns. It wouldn't matter how legal his returns were the opposition would always find issue with them. It wouldn't matter what Armstrong would say at arbitration, he would still be guilty.
Finzi Holst| 8.27.12 @ 8:44PM
Surely you mean Menstrual. I hope for all our sakes your febrile mind is never exercised in a jury trial.
PolishKnight| 8.27.12 @ 2:06PM
Hello Appleby. Ponder for a moment your wording: "Armstrong will be proved innocent." This is the philosophy of the USADA and other anti-doping agencies out of Europe which argues that all athletes are dopers unless PROVEN innocent. They need to be available for drug testing at any time, randomly, and if they fail to provide their location on a 24x7 basis for the drug test squad to find them, they're no better than a heroin addict out of Trainspotters.
In Putin's Russia, accused criminals are thrown into cages in the courtroom and then politically appointed judged decide their fate. This system is little better.
Mistral| 8.27.12 @ 3:59PM
No he won't be because he is a cheat - you obviously have read nothing about this character and the menas he has employed to intimidate accusers and to dodge tests.
This is not about so-called clean tests but about a conspiracy to cheat with Armstrong at the centre.
The fact he won't go to arbitration is evidence already of the fact he knows he has cheated by taking PEDs.
It's time you superior American people woke up to the fac tr that your society is rotten to the core.
Appleby| 8.27.12 @ 4:23PM
Aha! YOU SUPERIOR AMERICAN PEOPLE! There's the key to the whole kafuffle right there in a neat and tidy package.
Y'ALL CAN'T STAND THE FACT THAT LANCE ARMSTRONG IS AN AMERICAN!
I suspect that if we were talking about Alberto Contadori here -- who has been caught, convicted, served penalty time and is back racing again until he's caught again, the shoe would be on the other foot entirely. The fact is that you've not convicted Lance Armstrong of doping, YOU HAVE CONVICTED HIM OF BEING AN AMERICAN.
Mistral| 8.27.12 @ 4:27PM
And Americans are accusing the French of being responsible - USADA is American itself - or maybe you haven't noticed.
And by the way it is rude to shout.
Bill8472| 8.28.12 @ 10:16AM
How could any true American accuse the French of "being responsible?" We fully understand how silly such a thing is.
Enjoy those six-week paid vacations, Froggies! Keep growing those shady trees along your roads!
The Avenger| 8.27.12 @ 7:11AM
This is an injustice of the highest magnitude. Tygart obviously learned his craft from Dirty Harry Reid. They use the same tactics. Throw out and unsubstantiated charges citing phantom "witnesses" and see what sticks.
c. j. acworth| 8.27.12 @ 7:43AM
And if nothing sticks, you just keep on with the Inquisition, apparantly.
TLP| 8.27.12 @ 9:22AM
Ladies and Gentlemen: I give you Exhibit A, why we don't want anything to do with World Inquire Bodies like this one, and The World Court.
Some of you may not know this, but Our Country is in the Minority when it comes to "INNOCENT, until Proven Guilty".
Unlike the Roger Clemens fiasco, where the Government failed to Prove their Case, and mere Here-say was not enough to Convict him of any wrong doing?
In this case, as in most Courts in this World, YOU must Prove your Innocence. The Burden of Proof lies with you, the Accused.
This World body has NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support their Case. Armstrong pissed in every Cup, Jar, and Effeminate Frenchman's Face, that they put in front of him, and came up with NOTHING.
All they had was the Word of a Guy who already lied when He was Caught Doping. One wonders what kind of a Deal was struck with the Effeminate Europeans, in exchange for the Destruction of their Greatest Enemy - An Ameican with Cancer - Winning their Bike Race against the Creme de le Creme of European Manhood WITHOUT Cancer.
Can The Running of the Bulls, be far behind?
OP4| 8.27.12 @ 1:11PM
Actually, the Europeans in the form of the UCI, are challenging the American USADA and their runaway persecution of Armstrong. The UCI is refusing to strip his Tour de France victories without actual... evidence.
TLP| 8.27.12 @ 6:50PM
I stand corrected.
Thank You OP4.
Now, I feel even worse.
Mistral| 8.28.12 @ 10:53AM
On the contrary, it is the dirty trade klearned by Armstrong we are interested in - not blind American chauvinism and ignorance of the environment in which Mr Armstrong is being accused. It is up to him to face arbitration and show USADA are wrong. They have given him this chance but he has backed off. No wonder!
lost| 8.28.12 @ 11:31AM
The USADA ignoring a basic rule of law in the USA, the accused has the right to know of any and all evidence against them. All evidence against Armstrong is being with held from him. This is nothing more than a jack rabbit court. The USADA is going to find against Armstrong for using magic fairy dust if needed.
OP4| 8.27.12 @ 7:47AM
Glad I'm not the only one who was completely disgusted by the USADA. They got all the losers who failed tests to testify against the one winner who never did. Armstrong was right to tell them to go screw.
C. Vernon Crisler | 8.27.12 @ 9:00AM
I think it's about time that Congress looks into whether this agency should receive any more government funding.
Elle| 8.27.12 @ 11:18AM
That is an idea whose time has definitely arrived.
RCV| 8.27.12 @ 11:55AM
amen
Surly Curmudgen| 8.28.12 @ 2:24AM
Also who appoints members of this USADA? Does that person have an agenda? Who might be responsible for removing non performing members? Is there an inspector general with jurisdiction over the USADA? Somewhere there is a handle which can be used to smack them upside the head and make them do their job correctly.
Common Decency| 8.27.12 @ 8:21AM
It seems like natural justice has been trashed. Secret evidence, secret witnesses, a verdict without a hearing, evidence for the defense ignored without explanation - strange indeed. It leaves cycling in a mess. If the tests are so bad that they could never once catch Armstrong, and if Armstrong is guilty, then the tests were useless for years. Which means the sport was a fraud all that time. Are todays tests going to be useless in the future? How many years do we have to wait before they tell us todays tests are useless? If the tests were useful then to ignore the results is disgraceful. Either way the sport looks stupid.
Bob K| 8.27.12 @ 9:12AM
"It seems like natural justice has been trashed. Secret evidence, secret witnesses, a verdict without a hearing, evidence for the defense ignored without explanation-strange indeed."
That sounds like the recent Freeh Report on Penn State.
fmm| 8.27.12 @ 10:15AM
And a lot like the law breaking Obama administration.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 8.27.12 @ 8:52AM
Drug testing is a complex process whereby different positive or negative results can be achieved from the same sample, depending on the type of test used and the cut off levels for a positive result. In other words, a less stringent test might show negative for the substance being tested, while a gas chromotograph test might reveal positive results for the substance sought at a lower level.
That being said, I've never heard that Lance Armstrong tested positive at any level. Changing the rules while the game is being played, or after it is over in such a way to affect the result is a characteristic of dictatorial regimes, not constitutional republics. If we as a people took labels seriously, we would make the Anti-Doping Agency stop using US as a part of its name until it began adhering to the US rule of law.
JP| 8.27.12 @ 9:39AM
You are correct. Armstrong has probably been durg tested more than any other athlete in any sport -over 500 times in the last decade alone.
JP| 8.27.12 @ 9:37AM
Our society continues to fall under the thumb of the bureaucratic State. We have prosecutors who can legally prosecute a person into an early grave. There are regulatory agencies with vague mandates that can go after private citizens in prepetuity. Now that Armstrong has dropped out of arbitration, the USADA says they will now go after all of the endorsement money Armstrong has earned as a competitor. The USADA is in fact a non-profit organization which is fully funded by the federal government - it has no prosecutorial powers, nor does it enjoy the constitutional authority that federal agencies like the EPA or SEC enjoy. So, how can the USADA continue this persecution of a private citizen? It's akin to the Lion's Club going after a former member for not paying his dues. Is this the wave of the future?
We see this in other sports. It has become routine for coaches or athletes to be fined for voicing their opinions. First Amendment considerations aside, there is something very wrong for a coach to be fined for bad-mouthing his "betters". Could you imagine Earl Weaver managing in today's enviroment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpS-XFXxJvE
jaytrain| 8.27.12 @ 9:51AM
Tygart is the problem here , the only problem . What he is trying to do is nothing less than extortion , a baseball bat to the knees if you will . But unfortunately in the worls yoday he will make a fortune from this . like that other pumped up fraud Sandra Flake . What justice calls our for , screams out for , is to have this mutt hauled before the Congress , investigated by the IRS and stripped of every dollar of taxpayer money .
dougplank| 8.27.12 @ 10:13AM
Welcome to Obama's America.
Houdini| 8.27.12 @ 10:20AM
Secret hearings, courts, witnesses, evidence and the like...sounds just like the Soviet Union.....or the EPA
OP4| 8.27.12 @ 11:08AM
Or the GM bankruptcy proceedings.
TLP| 8.27.12 @ 6:51PM
You are my new Best Friend.
Welcome aboard.
pigdog| 8.27.12 @ 11:12AM
Maybe Armstrong should be thrown into water to see if he floats.
Wasn't there a Frenchman who used to be famous for winning bike races? I can't remember his name.
Skippy| 8.27.12 @ 3:35PM
Actually, no.
Tour winner 1940-44; Adolf Hitler.
TLP| 8.27.12 @ 6:52PM
That is a Great Comment.
John Navratil| 8.27.12 @ 11:13AM
Armstrong may be bigger than the USADA. Calling the bluff may be just enough to destroy it. We will see.
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 11:15AM
If Armstrong decided to go to arbitration, he would have access to all the evidence against him and would have been able to cross-examine the witnesses.
The only reason Armstrong did not go to arbitration is because he didn't want the evidence coming out - and there's lots of it. Forget the six positives from the late 90s/early 2000s. For example, there are data from 2008-2012 that are consistent with blood doping - the same infraction that got Tyler Hamilton sanctioned. These aren't the only blood data that would have come out.
BTW, the dropped case in February was not for doping, but rather for fraud. It was dropped by Andre Birotte, a Holder wannabe, against the strong objections of the investigators. Hmmmm.... with Fabiani and Lehane involved it couldn't be political, could it? Nah, the Justice Department is on the up and up.
Waaaahhh. USADA's not fair. This is the same USADA for whom Armstrong said their process was good and fair for over a decade. This is the same USADA that Armstrong's business partner and agent, Bob Stapleton, helped write the USADA process.
Poor, poor, Lance.
OP4| 8.27.12 @ 1:08PM
The USADA is under no constraint to keep any evidence against Armstrong secret. They already said they have a bunch of eyewitness testimony - form people who tested positive and are pointing at Armstrong to reduce their own punishments. That's it.
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 3:10PM
The witnesses are made up of both former riders and team staff (i.e., people who didn't ride or dope). There are also recent (2008-2012; i.e., not outside the statue of limitations) analytical data.
C. S. P. Schofield| 8.27.12 @ 1:22PM
"If Armstrong decided to go to arbitration, he would have access to all the evidence against him and would have been able to cross-examine the witnesses."
Oh, really? And just how do you know this, based on the record of this out-of-control nitwit and hid agency? In a criminal court, the defense must be given access to the evidence to be used against the accused before the trial. That Tygart declines to do so indicates to me that he has no intention of holding anything but a Kangaroo Court.
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 3:17PM
Have you read the USADA/WADA/CAS arbitration process? Did you know that Armstrong's business partner and agent helped write it?
If Armstrong had indicated that he would enter arbitration, he would have received the evidence. He chose not to enter arbitration.
Some of Armstrong's evidence will come out in Bruyneel's arbitration hearing in September.
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 3:23PM
Just so I'm clear, he would have received the evidence BEFORE any arbitration hearing, but he needed to select that option. Instead, he chose the banning and the Fabiani/Lehane PR scorched earth policy against USADA.
Jack London| 8.27.12 @ 11:25AM
Sadly it looks like there is overwhelming evidence against Armstrong. Cycling has been a corrupted sport in the 1990s/2000s. and few have come out of it well – riders and authorities.
TLP| 8.27.12 @ 6:54PM
There is NO EVIDENCE against Armstrong.
ARE YOU EVER FCKNG RIGHT?
No, you're not.
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 7:09PM
There's plenty of evidence against Armstrong and it will come out. Some later this month in the Bruyneel arbitration. Some in Tyler Hamilton's new book due on September 18th, and most in USADA's report to WADA and the UCI.
mcsandberg| 8.29.12 @ 8:20AM
There actually cannot be any evidence. These athletes are NOT normal, they are the outer fringes of what humans can be. Therefor they will not TEST normal. The only way to prove doping that would be admissible in a court of law would be to deliberately dope the athlete so you actually have a known doped sample.
Elle| 8.27.12 @ 11:27AM
Tests are either positive or negative. They are not "consistent with doping" if we used some other test we did not, in fact, use. Get these tyrannical government agencies/bureaucrats out of our lives (or in this case pseudo government bureaucrats). Our society will be better for it.
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 11:29AM
That is what the arbitration hearing is for. Present the data and have the panel rule on it. Lance Armstrong did not want these data to come out.
John Navratil| 8.27.12 @ 12:49PM
Ted_S,
So say you, and perhaps you are right! However, you are not part of the panel nor are you a representative of Armstrong. Your suppositions, presented as fact, seem to suggest your support for USADA and against Armstrong. You damn him by stating as fact Armstrong's motivations. How do you know what is in Armstrong's mind and when did you, if you actually have, stopped beating your wife?
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 1:27PM
Here's what I know: Armstrong had at least six analytical positives from the late 90s/early 2000s. These positives were for testosterone, EPO, and cortisone, all were banned substances. I know of Armstrong's deposition (these are now available on Youtube) when SCA sued him. I know of Armstrong's bullying of Frankie and Betsy Andreu when they were called to testify under oath in the same case. I know of Armstrong's further bullying of Lemond, Simoni, and others. I know of blood data that was part of Armstrong's filing in July that is now publically available.
Am I in Armstrong's head? No. There is substantial history of his past motivations and actions and it is clear where he is now. This would be clear and acceptable evidence not only in an arbitration hearing, but also in a court of law (which many seem to think this should be heard in).
You question my me, but overnight, an entire land office industry has sprung up decrying the procedures and motivations of USADA. The entire first paragraph of this story is not only misguided, but it is wrong. The USADA had nothing to do with the Federal case, but it is the basis for this article.
There are several other civil cases in the works from former sponsors and a Qui Tam federal whistleblower case. More and more of these blood data will be introduced and we'll have the eyewitness accounts in the record.
John Navratil| 8.27.12 @ 3:27PM
Ted_S,
You have knowledge that I do not. You say he failed six tests and what I have read says that he has not. The motivations of the USADA are not mine to know, but it seems clear to me that they (he) has been rather single-minded in pursuit of Armstrong.
Your predictions of the future outcome will be seen.
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 3:50PM
Good Lord, I just don't say it. Do you know how to use Google? Read the Ashenden interview:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/.....l-ashenden
Listen to Tygart on the Dan Patrick show:
http://www.msg.com/videos/the-.....t-824.html
Mistral| 8.28.12 @ 4:53PM
Well Done Ted - you have done your homework on this.
Century22| 8.27.12 @ 11:56AM
The French Never Change
The "witch hunt" on Lance Armstrong reminded me of a story I had read long ago. I found the story in a book on airships. It was the story of Brazilian born Santos Dumont.
Alberto Santos-Dumont enjoyed his time in Paris. He continued his education in engineering and built airships. Being the son of a wealthy coffee plantation owner he could afford all that Paris had to offer.
In the middle of the industrial revolution technology and invention was the rage of the day.
In April of 1900 the petrolium giant the Deutsch de la Meurthe offered a prize of 100k francs. To win this prize one had only to piolet a flying machine from the airfield the Parc Saint Cloud around the Eiffel Tower and back to the field in less than thirty minutes.
Santos-Dumont designed and built another airship to make this attempt. After a number of trys and another new design his airship number 6 made the trip. Crossing the finish line in 29 minutes and 30 seconds he was congratulated with a win. That win quickly faded into controversy because of a last minute rule change.
The prize was denied him for two weeks until the bad press and public outcry forced the committee to hand over his winnings.
Now we see in the news that the French are AGAIN trying to deny giving a prize to anyone that is not French. If someone other than a Frenchman wins, they change the rules!
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 12:28PM
The French are not doing this.
It would not matter if it was the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, or the Tour of Altoona. Since Armstrong signed a contract with the UCI and USA Cycling, he is subject to the anti-doping regulations enforced by USADA in the United States. USADA is a non-profit, non-governmental agency.
drake1456| 8.27.12 @ 11:56AM
Maybe the USADA should direct its attention to the Chines, whose athletes were SO superior to everyone else in swimming that a female actually swam a faster heat than the MALE world record holder, Ryan Lochte. And why look at things like Fast and Furious, where peop;e DIED than at Clemens and Armstrong.
Mike W| 8.27.12 @ 1:24PM
From reading these comments one might think that cheating is a conservative virtue. The guy cheated. Get over it. Just because he is your sacred cause that does not make him any less of a cheat.
Expend your outrage on the important issues.
C. S. P. Schofield| 8.27.12 @ 1:57PM
What really concerns me about this, is that this is just a reflection of how the 'justice' system is 'working' of late. There are too many prosecutors' offices that have bought into the "we know he's guilty, so we keep after him until he cracks, and to hell with ethics" mindset. It happens in the Drug War. It happens with child abuse cases. And what is worse, the prosecutors and the police enjoy (and routinely abuse) a broad immunity from the consequences of getting caught trying to destroy somebody.
Bill8472| 8.28.12 @ 10:27AM
I was thinking about the justice system too. We Americans want to put an end to endless accusing and maneuvering, so we have built into our LEGAL system such requirements as the presumption of innocence, due process of law, equal protection, and many, many other protections. We sometimes find these protections frustrating, but then if we ourselves get into serious trouble, we soon understand why the protections are so necessary.
USADA, as an extra-legal entity, has evidently discovered some way to continue to bring doping charges against Lance Armstrong. Armstrong has cooperated with USADA's chosen methods to determing doping, and has passed every test. Under ordinary due process requirements, Armstrong should be done with the continual harassment and bringing of process against him and should be declared innocent of the claims made against him. But no. USADA apparently believes that if one accusation won't pan out, they'll bring another one, on and on.
No wonder Armstrong has finally given up defending himself. It's too bad, though, because now there'll always be that question of why he stopped defending himself hovering in the wings.
Mistral| 8.27.12 @ 4:01PM
Many off you obviously only read this medium American Spectator - read all the books on the subject and all the articles on the many other sources available.
This author has got blinkered vision.
Bill8472| 8.28.12 @ 10:28AM
Personally, I prefer the American Spectator well-done.
Mistral| 8.27.12 @ 4:04PM
Many reactions here are characteristic of people who know nothingabout very little and very little about nothing. Shame on you all. USADA and WADA and several past & present cylists as well as authors on cycling know this man for what he has been doing and many of those implicated including three doctors who have accepted life time bans from the sport because they don't wnat us to know what has been going on.
Mistral| 8.27.12 @ 4:07PM
All the evidence is going to come out very soon in any case. This process is not over yet.
Read David Walsh's book and aricles on the matter for a start and then get yourselves educated about professional cycling and what has been going on in it.
Armstrong does not have a monopoly on cancer. many people work in this field who give plenty themselves but their work goes unsung.
Mistral| 8.27.12 @ 4:09PM
American Spectator is gettting worse by the month.
Joe D.| 8.27.12 @ 5:18PM
You are right on target. Who now is safe without due process. What about that king obama?
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 6:05PM
Judge Sparks in his July ruling said that USADA's arbitration rules "are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process." If Armstrong were subjected to any unfairness in the arbitration process, he would be able to seek legal relief through US courts. However, as long as USADA followed its own rules (and the judge ruled that USADA HAS followed its own rules so far), Armstrong would have sufficient due process. Federal Courts are not keen to interrupt an extant arbitration process.
wombat1| 8.27.12 @ 5:34PM
Will somebody please explain to me where the USADA got the authority to strip anybody of anything?
Ted_S| 8.27.12 @ 6:14PM
Armstrong had a racing license through both the UCI and USA Cycling. UCI, and by extension USA Cycling, has agreed to abide by the WADA/USADA doping rules. Two private entities engaging in a private contract - one of the foundations of free market capitalism.
USADA is a non-profit, non-government entity that was "recognized" (not founded by) Congress in 2001. USADA oversees all drug testing by Olympic sports and a few others.
Technically, USADA cannot do the stripping. That would need to be done by UCI and ASO (Amoury Sport Organization, the "owner" of the Tour de France and other big cycling events). However, the UCI is contractually bound to do the stripping based on the findings of USADA.
Keep in mind, that Tygart/USADA is more of the prosecutor. There is an independent three member panel that adjudicates the case.
Bob S| 8.28.12 @ 1:10AM
Yeah, sure it is non-government.
Michele San Pietro| 8.27.12 @ 5:49PM
It would be simply absurd and totally unfair to strip Lance Armstrong of all his titles, I refuse to believe he cheated from start to finish.
Mistral| 8.28.12 @ 10:44AM
If he really is guilty it is just and fair on the clean cyclists who cannot win because of the drug oriented cheats.
ebonystone| 8.27.12 @ 6:06PM
I would think that a pertinent question is: Just how good are Armstrong's winning times? If he finished overwhelmingly far in the lead, that might be suspicious. Or if he set overwhelmingly record times. But if previous winners had times about equal to his, or if the 2nd, 3rd, 4th place winners were close, then why the suspicion?
Or were they all on drugs?
Paul R.| 8.27.12 @ 7:25PM
It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
Finzi Holst| 8.27.12 @ 8:49PM
Those who can, do (Armstrong).
Those who can't, become blood-crazed bureaucratic zealots with a vendetta (Tygart).
There is nothing more base and retrograde than the envy of a Progressive.
BackToBasics| 8.27.12 @ 11:28PM
If Armstrong were an American person of color instead of being a white male, and had passed those same hundreds of tests, he'd rival Obam in his popularity with the left. The left might even try to get him to run for a House or Senate seat.
He would never have to give up his titles even though the French would mumble a few words of minor protest. That would also be hushed up rather quickly.
Mistral| 8.28.12 @ 10:46AM
This is not about French views. It is about real hard evidence. marion Jones and her boyfriend were undone by years of cheating; so-called clean tests and many denials. Were they white? Your assertions are without foundation.
BackToBasics| 8.28.12 @ 7:01PM
What is it about my statement, "....AND HAD PASSED THOSE SAME HUNDREDS OF TESTS...." do you not understand?
Your reply is without merit.
Denver Todd| 8.28.12 @ 12:12AM
If you read about Armstrong in the MSM, you would think he was totally guilty. This post opened my eyes, and made me distrust my local paper even more. They didn't even mention that there was any contrasting positions on the matter.
Mistral| 8.28.12 @ 10:50AM
It is not about MSM or any other factor than hard evidence. Most comments here are driven by ignorance of cycling; its procedures against cheats and the subjective illusions driven by chauvinism. there are hard facts which Mr Alpha male Armstrong does not want aired in public. They are going to come out anyway. One of USA best ever clean cyclists Greg LeMond knows Armstrong has cheated and he has scientific evidence of this.
Bob S| 8.28.12 @ 1:08AM
If you want to attack someone without proof, and you don't want to go to court, and you're the government, just fund an agency and say they're "on their own". How long until Obama creates an agency to target GOP politicians, leaders, and voters?
Ted_S| 8.28.12 @ 5:05PM
There's more than a little evidence that suggests Armstrong's lawyers Mark Fabiani and Chris Lehane (remember them from the Lewinsky affair?) got Eric Holder to squash the fraud investigation. The case was dropped by Holder protoge Andre Birotte over the strong objections of the investigators. The investigators included Novitsky who investigated Conte.
Armstrong's decision to not fight for himself in arbitration is not because Obama's government has it out for him. The opposite is true.
Mistral| 8.28.12 @ 4:52PM
http://velonews.competitor.com.....obe_236602
realfactchecker | 8.28.12 @ 5:22PM
So, USADA, who do you recognize as the winner of those races now? The guy who came in next who didn't cheat? What about his detractors? Oh wait...you can't go after non-citizens of the US, can you, you friggin' bully. Lance, we love you.
Ted_S| 8.29.12 @ 12:02AM
That is not up to USADA but rather UCI and ASO. USADA merely reports to UCI/ASO. UCI is under contract to do "something".
Mistral| 8.29.12 @ 12:42PM
This sort of rant makes no sense at all.