soccerguy315

thank you for the correction. That makes me feel better. Though obviously I still have issues with the other parts of the situation.

anniezz

While not a federal agency, they are funded in part by federal funds,

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using CC

eireann

Diana Taurasi missed most of a Turkish season sue to a completely wrong drug test (due to sloppy work in the lab to the best of my knowledge). I get the point, but even a positive test should allow due process or at the very least make sure that labs are following it.

ellemenope

I think that what they have got is: 1) a lot of testimony from his teammates and service providers over the years that they doped with him or he talked with them about what he was doing to dope his blood; and 2) statistical analysis that the composition of his blood is way off the normal range for someone who did not dope his blood.

After all, one of the ways to dope your blood is to give yourself transfusions. In fact, you can transfuse yourself with your own blood. How is THAT going to show up in a drug test? So that fact that there's never been a positive drug test doesn't mean that much to me.

Cycling has screwed up its brand with the use of doping techniques, just as baseball did. But baseball is coming back and cycling can too, if they can clean up the sport.

dmd77

Lance Armstrong's example of life after cancer changed my husband's life. While in his second round of chemo, he took up cycling to help him through the chemo. Lance's book It's Not About the Bike was on his bedside table for years. The Lance Armstrong Foundation has the promise to help a lot of people (and has already helped a lot of people) with its focus on what happens AFTER chemo and cancer and how to make a full recovery from cancer and its treatment.

My guess is that he took Epogen. It's a banned performance enhancer--and a drug that is given to cancer patients to help them through chemo.

Personally, I think this emphasis on drug testing of athletes is insane. I have friends who take testosterone because it helps them feel better (as in, now they want to get out of bed in the morning)--and have to decide between taking the testosterone or competing in certain cycling events (because if you have any sort of competition license, you can be banned if you take even medically-necessary drugs). My personal preference: make sure that drugs are sufficiently well-regulated that they are only available with a prescription, apply informed consent, and make sure only medically necessary drugs are prescribed.

soccerguy315

regarding #1, I think all of the witnesses have financial incentive to testify against Armstrong though, which seems like questionable motivation and therefore potentially questionable testimony.

ellemenope

If not financial incentive, then perhaps they are catching a break on the sanctions that could be imposed on them for their doping. But juries have to make decisions all the time about how much weight to give to the testimony of criminal witnesses who have been given a deal for their testimony against their partners in crime. This would not be any different.

egelloc80

He's passed other cases (including a federal case). He's passed every test. I call him clean and everyone knows who won the Tour de France......Unfortuant though

MomofWildChild

This wasn't a jury. It was an arbitration proceeding.

Wolverine86

Always good to get a chuckle from the perceived self-importance of these organizations. Why are news organizations reporting that Lance Armstrong has been stripped of his TDF titles? He hasn't. USADA has no such authority. They can refuse to recognize him as winning 7 TDF titles, but who cares? Unless the ICU strips him of those titles, he is still a 7 time TDF winner and the ICU won't decide anything until the USADA provides them with their "evidence". What about USADA's "lifetime ban" on Lance? He's retired...what exactly are you banning him from? I wouldn't go so far as to call it a witch-hunt, because that implies he's innocent of the charges and we don't know that for sure...and maybe never will. But it's definitely a vendetta. Let the USADA claim whatever "victory" they think they achieved, but it's totally toothless.

Youdon'tsay

This sums it up for me: Washington Post

FlyMeToTheMoon

I agree Youdon'tsay. I don't follow the sport, nor Lance Armstrong, although I did recognize his name ;-)

If this has already been addressed in this thread, I missed it, but what would be the motivation of USADA to respond as they did? Yes, I understand that it was not going before a jury, but why do they get to say that since Armstrong no longer denies it, he is automatically guilty?

MomofWildChild

You don't have to follow the sport to know about Lance Armstrong, Livestrong, and how much he has accomplished for cancer research and the support of cancer patients.

cartera45

I think he knew he would be buried in testimony and that those who hang onto the "but no positive test" would even be overwhelmed by it. A positive drug test may be equivalent to DNA evidence in a murder, but circumstantial evidence is often the very best evidence and there is mounds of that in Armstrong's case. I think he doped, but I lost interest in the outcome a long time ago.

Here is a good synopsis of some of the allegations. The analysis here is spotty but it's an interesting read.

The Top Ten Cases Against Lance Armstrong | Bicycling Magazine

BCEagle91

> really glad our tax money gets spent on the Lance Armstrong witch hunt; obviously
> there are no more pressing issues.

Of course there were more pressing issues - Roger Clemens will attest to that.