Lance Armstrong's contention is that he is not conceding that he doped, but that he has withdrawn from a process that will not give him a fair hearing. His case is that he never failed a drug test, the USADA is retroactively changes its rules so that it can go back and retest samples up to 14 years old (instead of the current 8 years), it is using coerced testimony from known cheaters and rivals, and it is using an abitration process that is biased. LA Times business writer Michael Hiltzik lays out this position pretty well in the following article:
I am not a fan of Armstrong, or of any kind of racing, but do believe in due process. I am especially concerned about arbitration, which is included in so many contracts these days. I do not see that arbitration, as practiced in the U.S., sufficiently guarantees the neutrality and competence of arbitrators. I'd rater put myself in the hands of a jury of my peers than those of an arbitrator. I find the court system's support of arbitration to be troubling, given that most arbitrators are ex-judges who pick up some nice retirement income.
They have kept ahead of the testers since the 30s by controlling the list of performance enhancing drugs.
The Canadian snowboard guy who proved that pot was NOT a performance enhancing drug and got back a (non Olympic) medal?
I am not a lawyer so must tread carefully. PLEASE check into the CLINIC forum on CYCLINGNEWS.COM There are over 10,000 contributions on Armstrong and all that's been going on, from everyone from ex pro cyclists to lawyers to those really in the know about what goes on behind the scenes.
Very briefly; 1) U.C.I. ( Union Cyclist International based in Switzerland) runs the pro racing teams and their testing.
3) They are allegedly 'in bed' with Armstrong and his business interests, and have received massive financial contributions from Armstrong.
4) They have openly been accused of giving Armstrong PRIOR warning of doping tests on him, and of ignoring the laid down proceedure for those tests. (Giving him time and opportunity to take masking measures to avoid testing positive.)
5) The UCI are also allegedly accused of 'burrying' and dismissing two occasions on which Armstrong DID test positive, despite all the precautions. (Independant labs test and do not know who they are testing.. only the UCI knows which samples are which, so they alone are able to say.)
6)The most drug infested period of pro cycling began in the 90's with overdosing of E.P.O. Armstrong is allegedly accused of driving the whole 'arms race' of that period, by his drug fuelled dominance.
1) USADA issued charges against Armstrong. (Doping over the course of his career, dope distribution to others, incitement to others to dope, and working with doping doctors...also charged by USADA.)
4) Armstrong filed a court case to block USADA durisdiction. (He wanted UCI to deal with things, and exonerate him.)
5) Judge Sparks dismissed Armstrongs case and awarded costs to USADA. He made clear that, provided USADA followed correct laid down protocols it was no business of the courts to decide the matter.
6) An unholy row erupted during which USADA gained the right to issue its charges, and UCI had to back down and allow them to.
7) USADA gave Armstrong a deadline to either accept arbitration or be stripped of his titles. (The arbitors would be three. One would be chosen by USADA, one by Armstrong, and the third by the other two arbitors. There was no question of unfairness.)
8)If ARmstrong accepted arbitration he would be faced by over 10 witnesses to his doping, all of whom had given sworn statements to that effect. There was NO WAY that he could have simply dismissed them all as liers, vindictive or jealous!
9) Knowing what he would have been up against, he threw in the towel ONE HOUR before the deadline, and issued his usual nonsense of witch hunts, lying, and playing the P.R. stuff for all he was worth.
GT..Agree 100%. When , Levi and George chirped, the gig was up! Levi was given the choice to chirp, or take 6 months off due to HIS association with bad actors.
"The UCI's public statements, prior conduct, and myriad conflicts of interest foreclose any results management for it. The USPS (United States Postal Service... Armstrongs team) doping conspiracy was going on under the watch of the 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."
Actually, Gurgletrousers makes the best case I have seen so far regarding this matter. Now, there's other issues that "illegal doping" controversies don't often address i.e. the health issues. These drugs have been deemed dangerous to the health of the people taking them. In fact the East Germans before unification cranked out very impressive medal counts in the Olympics due to their rampant use of performance enhancing drugs. Where are these atheletes today? Are they alive? Are they living in a freakish state in some state hospital? Lyle Alzedo was one of the few who attributed his demise to steroids that drew media attention. "I started taking anabolic steroids in 1969 and never stopped. It was addicting, mentally addicting. Now I'm sick, and I'm scared. Ninety percent of the athletes I know are on the stuff. We're not born to be 300 lb (140 kg) or jump 30 ft (9.1 m). But all the time I was taking steroids, I knew they were making me play better. I became very violent on the field and off it. I did things only crazy people do. Once a guy sideswiped my car and I beat the hell out of him. Now look at me. My hair's gone, I wobble when I walk and have to hold on to someone for support, and I have trouble remembering things. My last wish? That no one else ever dies this way." All public attention seems to go to the competitions. There is little follow up regarding the victors and their lives after the competitions. Lastly, how about the option of allowing all kinds of doping in all competitions and letting the individual athlete make the choice. The guys now in the spotlight of cycling are middle aged and really past their competitive lives. Let's see how they handle the rest of their lives and for that matter how long they will live. I'm twenty years older than they are and probably will see many of them die in my lifetime.
I'm not interested sufficiently to study the issue, but I'm getting the sneaky suspicion that he has been gaming the system by staying one step ahead of the detection technology all these years, thus violating the rules without getting caught. If that's a fair interpretation, he's not a fair contender. If this is nothing but baseless character assassination, many politicians and I can empathize with him and pray that his false accusers ride off a cliff in their next road trip.
GT, my main problems with the USADA case involve their reliance on evidence that goes back 14 years (beyond their own 8 year limit), the reliability of their witnesses, and the neutrality of the arbitrators.
First, I have problems with using old samples: how were they stored, chain of custody, scientific validity of testing methods, competence and neutrality of testers, etc.
As to reliability of witness: USDA has tremendous power to coerce testimony, and there are professional and personal rilvalries involved. I have not read of any recordings, pictures , e-mails, etc. that clearly back up their testimony. No "smoking gun".
The most troubling issue to me is that of the neutrality of the arbitrators. While the athlete gets to chose one of the arbitrators, the arbitrators they get to chose from are dependent on getting work from the USADA. Their fees are paid by the USADA. They are also interpreting USADA rules, and one of the parties in the case is the rule maker and enforcer.
Finally, in most doping cases, witnessess and testimony are in support of the positive results of testing. In this case, the witnesses and testimony are contrary to negative test results.
Armstrong's defence woulld have been very expensive and time consuming, and would have taken place in a process in which athletes have prevailed in only a very small percentage of cases. I can see why he would chose not to participate.
Pointster....George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer were about to testify, not Floyd Landis, and Tyler Hamilton. George , and Levi are two of Lance's best friends and whose careers were launched by Lance. No Hincapie clothing without Lance, no Grand Fondo for Levi without Lance. Levi was given the option to sit for six months because of his association with the same doctors as Lance, or chirp, he chose to chirp. Because of this , he has to relinquish his assocaition with the Grand Fondo on Sept 29th, an event he launched in Santa Rosa which attracts 6000 cyclists, myself included. The gig was up, and that is that. I fully expect one day Lance will come clean....