Lance Armstrong banned by USADA

[Don]

The really scary thing about this whole thing is how ignorant that people actually believe there might be a way to come up with any evidence that Lance Armstrong tested positive. The French viewed Armstrong as the person who ruined the Tour de France and went through considerable effort to try to bust him but was never successful. If a nation failed to do so, there's no way an Internet warrior can do it. It's not like say the Steroid Era guys where they simply didn't test some people (or test enough) so you got guys who got away with it once and then just retired before he can be tested again. He was constantly watched by people trying to take him down and was never caught, so either he was just that good or that his drugs were just lightyears ahead of what everyone else had (they keep the blood sample to test for future when better tests come out) and either way you're not going to get any evidence. If Armstrong had his own secret uber drug he's clearly smart enough to keep it only for himself (otherwise they wouldn't be able to get plea bargains for testimonies against him, because those guys would never get caught if they had access to the same stuff Lance allegedly had) so I really don't see how these alleged testimonies would even matter. I mean the most you can say is like: "I asked Lance for his undetectable drug, but he wouldn't give me any (which is why I got caught)." And you can replace Lance with any athlete that's ever lived and it'd work okay because you can never prove that soandso didn't dope with some kind of undetectable drug because it's undetectable. I mean I can say that I saw LeBron James took some steroids and then used some state of the art stuff to hide the results before his test, and you can't prove this never happened either.

This whole thing is reminding me of Kindaichi. If you think someone is guilty and you think it is possible that he can do it, then that guy is guilty and you don't even need evidence let alone due process. It's literally a repeat of the one episode where the DNA shows A did it but Kindaichi is convinced that it was B who was A's long lost identical twin and because it is clearly POSSIBLE for B to be A's long lost identical twin that means we totally ignore what would be considered nearly irrefutable evidence and arrest B instead. Of course in the world of manga Kindaichi's never wrong, but that'd really suck if people determined crime like that in real life.

[SineSwiper]

Dude, at least link to the story:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/ ... les-082312

For one, I think it's a load of BS. This organization has no concept of double jeopardy, so fuck them. Fuck USADA. Fuck Travis Tygart. Fuck France for doing the same thing over and over again. In the history of sports, there has never been an athlete hounded this many times for drug use, and always proven innocent. At this point, the ball is in USADA's court to provide definitive evidence of doping. If they can't, he's innocent. End of story.

[Zeus]

Dude, at least link to the story:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/ ... les-082312

For one, I think it's a load of BS. This organization has no concept of double jeopardy, so fuck them. Fuck USADA. Fuck Travis Tygart. Fuck France for doing the same thing over and over again. In the history of sports, there has never been an athlete hounded this many times for drug use, and always proven innocent. At this point, the ball is in USADA's court to provide definitive evidence of doping. If they can't, he's innocent. End of story.

What if they have new evidence?

[Don]

I figure it was easily foundable so didn't bother linking.

This isn't exactly law here. If new evidence shows his blood is tainted using Himalayan Goat Blood injects that is illegal then they would've already shown this stuff. You don't sort of fail or sort of pass a drug test. You either pass it or you fail it. There's a reason why they keep all the blood/urine for like 10 years in case new tests come out, and as long as it's not something along the lines of ex post facto (stuff that might've been legal in the past that's now illegal) that's perfectly valid evidence. As far as I can tell everyone who's ever tested positive by the test method (i.e. both samples are positive, not just one) for whatever loses 100% of the time and nobody has successfully argued against that, so any positive test can be considered irrefutable evidence for guilty and thus, should have been used immediately. It'd just read like "Armstrong tests positive for Himalayan Goat Blood, he's now banned" and that'd be perfectly acceptable.

Since any positive test would be considered irrefutable, I have to assume they do not have such evidence. At any rate, the French and a whole mess of Armstrong's enemies would like to know where to get these irrefutable evidence since there's a lot of guys who have been trying to nail him for years. It's clear they only have "I saw Armstrong doping" testimony and if you're going to trust some guy saying that over running 500 tests, why even have tests? Anybody can say I saw this guy doping. I saw Michael Jordan doping too, true story.

This is done by the USADA which is not the French. Even the French gave up, which is why I think this whole concept is absurd. Even the French who had the most reason to hate Armstrong concluded they weren't going to be able to nail him because either he didn't cheat or he was 10 steps ahead of their game so they'd never be able to catch him. This whole thing seems like a random agency want to show 'your tax dollars at work'. It's not even a vendetta like the French who genuinely have issues with Armstrong ruining their national pride.

[Don]

Not going to claim I'm a huge expert on how these preceding go but I think had it came down to arbitration, what I get is that USADA gets to pick who as the arbitrator. Armstrong will not get to cross examine any of his accusers. One figure quotes USADA has never lost an arbitration case and the other figure I found says they're 58-2. Either way, it's pretty hard to win when whoever accuses you gets to pick the judge too. It does seem quite certain there was no possible way he would've been able to win in the arbitration process because it's not a court of law so there's nothing fair about this process at all.

[Eric]

A sad day for all 3 of America's cycling fans

[Don]

A sad day for all 3 of America's cycling fans

I watched Tour de France on Versus before. It's like really boring, but it's something to do while on the treadmill.

[Zeus]

A sad day for all 3 of America's cycling fans

What are you talking about?!? It's so riveting watching teams sacrifice themselves to block other riders so their one chosen one can just cruise to victory over the last 7 stages!!

[SineSwiper]

What if they have new evidence?

Ask the same question in the context of any other legal case. You can't try somebody for the same thing over and over again, new evidence or otherwise. Besides, after all of the separate occasions he's been tried for the same thing, they have had years to present all the evidence they could possibly present.

If they suddenly have new evidence now, fuck em. It's too late.

[Don]

What if they have new evidence?

Ask the same question in the context of any other legal case. You can't try somebody for the same thing over and over again, new evidence or otherwise. Besides, after all of the separate occasions he's been tried for the same thing, they have had years to present all the evidence they could possibly present.

If they suddenly have new evidence now, fuck em. It's too late.

The USADA is not a law agency so I think they don't care about stature of limitation or double jeopardy even though you'd think any reasonable stature of limitation would've expired by now.

At any rate I have no problem if they've new evidence/test as long as it's not Ex Post Facto. Like if they were able to find that Lance Armstrong really had EPO or whatever back in 1999 and prove it then that's at least solid evidence (though I don't think there was even a ruling on whether EPO is legal back then so it'd be Ex Post Facto). But seriously, the last title Armstrong won was like 7 years ago. There was more than just USADA trying to take him down so if there was any physical evidence, USADA isn't anywhere near the front of line to get it because the French would've gotten it first. The tests are really are all or nothing. Nobody has ever been able to weasel their way out of a failed test and frankly the guys running the test totally doesn't care whatever excuse you have as long as you failed both test samples (which has never happened to Armstrong). Since the guys running the tests don't even like Armstrong there would be absolutely no reason for anybody to cover for him if they did have 2 failed samples on the same test.

The new evidence consists of testimony from former teammates and whatnot, and because the arbitration is not a court of law Armstrong will not be able to cross examine his accusers, even though surely he'd bring question of their motivation (most of these guys were doping and had a deal with USADA for lesser sentence to testify against Armstrong). But since he cannot cross examine his accusers it'd simply be his words against 10 other guy's words and I think most experts agree that he has no chance of winning like that since the witnesses outnumber him 10 to 1.

One interesting comment I saw was that guys like Jose Canseco or Flyod Landis really didn't accomplish that much even when they were using drugs. Not saying they're horrible but certainly Jose Canseco was no Barry Bonds in terms of accomplishment, so basically these guys doped and still weren't the best at their sports, but when they get busted they're viewed as THE leading authority on who else doped. It's almost like people sympathize these guys because even though they cheated, they still didn't end up doing anything impressive so we give them a break, but since Barry Bonds actually broke the home run record while presumably on steroids that's totally unforgivable. If you're going to worship a hero, shouldn't you worship the guy who was indeed #1 after using drugs, as opposed to a guy who was nowhere near #1 while using drugs?

[Zeus]

What if they have new evidence?

Ask the same question in the context of any other legal case. You can't try somebody for the same thing over and over again, new evidence or otherwise. Besides, after all of the separate occasions he's been tried for the same thing, they have had years to present all the evidence they could possibly present.

If they suddenly have new evidence now, fuck em. It's too late.

This is why legal proceedings take forever and a day.....

[Mully]

Not going to enjoy sports until Steroids/Doping is mandatory...like Blurnsball.

[Don]

Not going to enjoy sports until Steroids/Doping is mandatory...like Blurnsball.

One thing I always thought is interesting is that people all say Cycling is messed up with doping but do we know if any other sports is any cleaner? I mean they at least try to test people pretty darn often and at random interval times. If you assume the likelihood to cheat is some function of the difficulty of the sports X the payoff X chance of getting caught, shouldn't all the pro sports be filled with cheaters? After all I'm sure even a relative no name guy in any of the major pro sports in USA makes more money than Lance Armstrong, and certainly you face considerably less obstacle to dope in any pro sports compared to what you'd face in Cycling. If people loook at Armstrong who has superhuman endurance and say 'no way that's legit', then why don't people look at LeBron James who clearly has superhuman strength and say 'no way that's legit?' I saw a guy saying if you just go by apperances, certainly you'd think every linesman in NFL is doped up as they look exactly what we'd think someone on drugs would look like. Contrast this to cycling, where all the guys at least looks like legitmate people, and yet the public obviously figures Cycling is a dirty sports, and yet American Football is viewed as a clean sport even though the modern offensive/defensive line people looks exactly like what you'd expect from someone on steroids. Not saying looks are everything, but shouldn't you be more suspicious that NFL isn't a legitmate sports compared to Cycling just based on apperance/frequency of testing/payoff for cheating?

[Julius Seeker]

MMA has crazy amounts of performance enhancement abuse. Some of it is legal: they allow up to 6:1 testosterone ratios in MMA before you get a suspension.

Got caught after about 14 years - only a 9 month suspension:

[Don]

It's almost like if you're popular enough you can get away with cheating because enough people want to see crazy performances. During the steroids era in Baseball I'm sure a lot of people thought something was fishy but they didn't even test people for steroids back then. If you were a neutral observer, you'd think the guy Seeker linked looked more like someone on drugs compared to any guy in Cycling, which actually looks like you and me. I mean it's not like you can't tell the guy on steroids in Baseball era had huge muscles and whatnot, and while that alone isn't proof, it sure is a pretty good indicator.

[SineSwiper]

MMA has crazy amounts of performance enhancement abuse. Some of it is legal: they allow up to 6:1 testosterone ratios in MMA before you get a suspension.

Got caught after about 14 years - only a 9 month suspension:

At least MMA has strict weight categories. Can't do much about baseball or football, where people vary greatly in size.

Or basketball, where the best players end up being the people with some long-term gland problem (Ming, Davis). It's not like you can abuse that... yet.

[Don]

People in NBA have insane combination of strength and speed even relative to their weight class though, and that's obviously something drugs can help you with. NFL is true in a lot of positions too. In fact it's kind of strange you don't hear people accuse of people doping in these sports even though you have these guys with insane combination of strength and speed.