Lance Armstrong Formally Charged with Doping by USADA

[Average Reds]

But isn't it fundamentally unfair to ding guys like Landis, Hamilton, etc. but give a free pass to the most famous and (in a sense) "winningest" rider of the past decade?

That's like giving the Yankees a pass because "it's bad for baseball" and enforcing PED sanctions against clubs like San Diego.

I'm not suggesting that Armstrong be given a pass and the others not. I'm saying that what we've learned from from the scorched-earth pursuit of Armstrong is that testing for PEDs in cycling is a joke - they're all dirty.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not conceivable to me that the powers that be in cycling didn't know that this is what has been going on for the past several decades. And if they knew this, I can't understand that they chose this path as a way to eliminate PEDs from the sport. It reminds me of the famous quote from a US army officer in Vietnam: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it".

I have absolutely no idea where they go from here. All of the big names of cycling have been trashed. Hell, the entire sport has been trashed. They'll never regain credibility with me, and I suspect the same is true for a lot of fans.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I'm saying that what we've learned from from the scorched-earth pursuit of Armstrong is that testing for PEDs in cycling is a joke - they're all dirty.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not conceivable to me that the powers that be in cycling didn't know that this is what has been going on for the past several decades. And if they knew this, I can't understand that they chose this path as a way to eliminate PEDs from the sport.

I am speculating here, but I think the UCI/TDF folks saw Armstrong as a kind of golden goose. He was controversial without being entirely off-putting, brought the cancer story into the sport, and probably created a lot of revenue. He cemented and expanded the American market that LeMond opened up; and with the rise of the internet, he became the ambassadorial image of "cycling" and "TDF" to a lot of people.

For example, when Nike advertised Armstrong, they benefited from the Armstrong as TDF-winner/cancer-survivor narrative, i.e., "the Armstrong Story." In turn, cycling in general benefits as the sport becomes more acceptable, etc. You'd have to check to see if there was an uptick in cycling sales, etc. which might have lead to sponsors putting pressure directly or indirectly on UCI. And by indirectly, it's hard to think someone didn't tell the UCI that the Armstrong story was the best thing that happened to cycling in a long while. (Anecdotally, I can tell you that there seem to be less teens on bikes as a transportation/commute medium, but far more weekend-warriors from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s; dunno if that means more money or not.) There are also reports Armstrong donated lots of cash to the UCI, so his value to that body may have been more immediate and liquid.

But to switch animal metaphors, as Armstrong's success grew, the UCI found themselves riding a tiger. You can't really ban Armstrong without the sport taking a huge hit in popularity (at least not while Armstrong is actually racing). You can't really go after the lead riders without consequence. An Armstrong suspension/investigation in 2000, mid-tour would have likely been feared as being disastrous for the sport. Hence, the "keeping things as they are" approach in testing, while allowing the riders to reach more and more ridiculous levels of output. (While the testing changed over time, my impression from reading the report is that doping at that level of the sport was more or less an open secret.)

In a way, it would be like the PED years in baseball - everyone turned a blind eye because breaking records brought publicity/revenue. But it becomes noticeable when the records are shattered, then shattered again, etc. Eventually there has to be a housecleaning.

So I'm not sure the UCI/TDF folks chose the path, so much as found themselves on it and closed their eyes. Again, just guessing on my part. I think there's probably more to come about the UCI's role in all this.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Well, I don't disagree with you. It's kind of a viscous circle though - 1) competitive young rider wants to break in, 2) he can't and suspects other riders (vets) are doping, 3) he dopes to close the gap, 4) he becomes the other rider who blocks a competitive young rider. . .

It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma under which everyone ends up doping just to get on a level playing field.

But if you want to break that vicious cycle, you need to establish a credible anti-doping regime and enforcement that will give the message to the Lance Armstrongs of today and tomorrow that if they dope, there's a good chance they will lose either way. That's why it's important for Lance to lose quite a bit of his titles even so many years after he won them.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

This gets to the heart of what I feel about the maniacal pursuit of Armstrong.

The problem with cycling isn't the individual who cheats, it's that cheating is so widespread that the entire sport is guilty. And so going after only those who win is the very definition of a pyrrhic victory.

I don't think there can be any doubt that Armstrong cheated. The fact that the only way they could "prove" this was to round up scores of his fellow cheaters to testify to his cheating shouldn't really satisfy anyone.

Besides the reason I mentioned, it's because doping kills life. And it's not exactly a level-playing field, some people would dope more and better than others. You have to enforce the anti-doping regulations until you establish a status quo where athletes have enough incentives and disincentives not to dope.

The rest of it is cognitive dissonance caused by the unwarranted deification of Lance Armstrong.

Btw, besides wondering whether he got cancer precisely because he was doping, I started wondering yesterday whether he was such a prick precisely because he was getting obscene levels of testosterone.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I'm not suggesting that Armstrong be given a pass and the others not. I'm saying that what we've learned from from the scorched-earth pursuit of Armstrong is that testing for PEDs in cycling is a joke - they're all dirty.

I guess what I'm saying is that it's not conceivable to me that the powers that be in cycling didn't know that this is what has been going on for the past several decades. And if they knew this, I can't understand that they chose this path as a way to eliminate PEDs from the sport. It reminds me of the famous quote from a US army officer in Vietnam: "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it".

I have absolutely no idea where they go from here. All of the big names of cycling have been trashed. Hell, the entire sport has been trashed. They'll never regain credibility with me, and I suspect the same is true for a lot of fans.

Again, a crucial distinction. The US antidoping agency caught Armstrong. The International Cycling Federation has probably been exposed as a corrupt body here. There's no unified hand of God . There's a multitude of factions with different interests and conceptions of justice who are acting here.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

My opinion has now shifted from some doped to everyone doped. I don't know if I just never thought it through before, but after the evidence regarding Lance, I no longer feel bad for the individual, but instead feel for the sport.

I don't blame guys in big sports with money at stake to do what you feel pressured to do in order to be competitive. It's not a matter of level of success, its a matter of survival. If you don't do what everyone else is doing, you aren't even in the sport. So in a sense I now look at cycling as a whole and think is this the best you could do over the course of the last 20 years?? Was it that hard to come up with unbeatable tests and penalty standards that would put everyone on a clean and level playing field?

I think I've watched my last Tour de France for a while...

Btw, there have been a couple of cyclists who were clean and raced fair and squared who suffered under a code of Omerta that Lance Armstrong imposed. There are literally cyclists - clean cyclists!- who became pariahs and got driven out of the sport because of Lance Armstrong. You need to confer justice for them too.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Btw, there have been a couple of cyclists who were clean and raced fair and squared who suffered under a code of Omerta that Lance Armstrong imposed. There are literally cyclists - clean cyclists!- who became pariahs and got driven out of the sport because of Lance Armstrong. You need to confer justice for them too.

I don't doubt that. But I'm leaning heavily towards believing that anyone on a competent team that has designs on winning the GC, or is a climber shepherding the GC through the mountains was using. And I do believe the playing field was not level for those doping, teams with better finances could do what Lance essentially did, better doctors, better drugs, better distribution...so the doping playing field was not level IMO.

And realistically, I don't have trouble with this code of silence, omerta, heavy handed-ness we apparently have in Lance in regards to dopers. You step to the dark side for the benefit of your career and that comes with certain sacrifices, that conduct towards clean cyclist is a different matter entirely.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Somewhat unexpected, Nike steps aside

So for the record, Nike is OK with anal rape (Kobe), rape/rape (Ben), dog killing (Vick), and infidelity (Tiger)...but they're drawing the line, this time at least (Arod), on PED's (Lance). Of course those guys are still active, so morality and shelf life are one gigantic sliding scale.

 

[SumnerH]

Yep, dropped in 2007 and re-signed in 2011. http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=6730833

 

[twothousandone]

I don't think there can be any doubt that Armstrong cheated. The fact that the only way they could "prove" this was to round up scores of his fellow cheaters to testify to his cheating shouldn't really satisfy anyone.

There was always a ton of circumstantial evidence, but Armstrong had the technicalities on his side. And I thought he would still have a claim after the report came out, but USADA was thorough. They had teammates not only saying “We all did it. Lance too.” They’ve got Armstrong as the ringleader, seeking out the best dopers in the business (he's a competitive guy, that Lance Armstrong). Intimidating those who considered resisting, extracting revenge on those who dared speak the truth. They’ve even got him lying about all the tests he passed – many of those tests weren’t for banned drugs.

And USADA has evidence, as well. Perhaps not evidence that would hold up in court, but they confirm the belated testing for EPO from an old sample (once an EPO test was created.) They’ve got Hincapie saying Armstrong dropped out of a race when he knew he was to be tested. They’ve got him telling Frankie to tell his wife to shut up. They’ve got the zip your lips shots. They’ve got him. And it is so complete that sponsors know they can’t take the heat. It’s not just “he cheated like everyone else, and because everyone was cheating, he was the best cycler.”

It’s “he was the best cheater. He was a bully. He convinced others to cheat. He intimidated witnesses and perhaps ruined careers. He’s been lying for years, and been sanctimonious about it.” He beat cancer, created a pretty good charity, and was an inspiration (under false pretenses) for many. Now it’s clear he’s a lousy role model, a cheater and a bully, who beat cancer, created a pretty good charity and was an inspiration (under false pretenses) for many.

I hope live strong continues. I hope Armstrong pays a huge price. It’s started, but more ought to be forthcoming.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

There is one little issue out there.... If this case is so ironclad, how come the US Attorney's office dropped the case and closed the investigation? Anyone care to think about that?

 

[Average Reds]

There is one little issue out there.... If this case is so ironclad, how come the US Attorney's office dropped the case and closed the investigation? Anyone care to think about that?

Not a hard one - the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict in a criminal case is much different than the standard of proof required to allow the USADA to declare someone guilty without trial.

 

[SumnerH]

Not a hard one - the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict in a criminal case is much different than the standard of proof required to allow the USADA to declare someone guilty without trial.

Which is basically another way of saying "the case isn't so ironclad, maybe we have a preponderance of evidence but it's not airtight," isn't it?

 

[Average Reds]

Which is basically another way of saying "the case isn't so ironclad, maybe we have a preponderance of evidence but it's not airtight," isn't it?

Sure. But I don't think anyone has argued that point. Hell, I made it myself earlier in the thread.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

That's my point, this is being reported as mounds of evidence, insurmountable, etc...and since its 200+ pages everyone is relying on the reports.

I think sometime in the next few weeks I'll read the entire thing myself. Something doesn't add up, U.S. Attorney's offices prosecute on evidence like this all the time, especially when gobs of federal money was involved.

 

[twothousandone]

Chris Manderson, the lawyer representing Hamilton, told ESPN.com's Bonnie Ford the former cyclist was honest in his testimony to grand jurors, his further discussions with federal investigators, and in his "60 Minutes" interview.
"He told the truth and I think people believed that,'' Manderson said. "The fact that doping occurred is a separate issue from whether a federal crime occurred. If (federal authorities) made a decision not to prosecute, that doesn't mean that somebody didn't cheat in a bicycle race.''

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/7538482/federal-prosecutors-close-lance-armstrong-doping-case-press-charges

The idea that the government had a case against Armstrong, when they were clearly paying for advertising – and he gave them a ton of exposure – was silly to me. And it might be one reason they stopped pursuing the case. Can Discovery Channel sue? Rabbobank? Radio Shack? Garmin?

It is now more than guilt by association. It is accusations from at least 11 riders, backed up with evidence that, while it may be countered to provide reasonable doubt in a trial (would conspiracy be a jury trial?) is IMO overwhelming. Armstrong can make the same argument you just did. The follow-up question, in the court of public opinion, is why did Leipheimer lie? Why did Hincapie lie? Why did Zabriskie lie? Why did Danielson lie? Why did the Andreu’s lie? (And I haven’t read all the testimony, yet, so I don’t know that everyone fingered Armstrong. Leipheimer isn’t an eyewitness to doping, but he’s got him on witness intimidation.)

And the 2009 test didn’t follow the organization protocols, so it was thrown out, but it wasn’t “incorrect”.

I haven’t read it all, but much of it, and it is compelling. Armstrong cheated, lied about it, pressured others to cheat, lied about it, intimidated those who thought (or did) about speaking up, and lied about that. He is as dirty as can be. I know the US attorney dropped the case and Hincapie wasn’t cross-examined – but that’s not compelling to me. The testimony of his teammates is.

 

[Rovin Romine]

That's my point, this is being reported as mounds of evidence, insurmountable, etc...and since its 200+ pages everyone is relying on the reports.

I think sometime in the next few weeks I'll read the entire thing myself. Something doesn't add up, U.S. Attorney's offices prosecute on evidence like this all the time, especially when gobs of federal money was involved.

I'm curious about the Department of Justice's decision as well. I speed-read/skimmed the report again in more detail. I'm going to assume that the report represents about 80% of the evidence that could be mustered at a trial. The DOJ may have had more potential evidence via the grand jury, and you never know when a co-defendant might roll. My conclusion was that even so, it's a defendable case, but the weight of the evidence is *strongly* in favor of the prosecution. Probably 90-10. Or 95-5. Thus, at the preponderance standard, I'd much rather have the USADA side then the LA side. (Putting it a slightly different way, if it was (somehow) a civil case paid on contingency, I'd take the USADA side but wouldn't take the LA side.)

A quick breakdown (apologies to attorneys reading this, as it's drafted primarily for the non-lawyers among us):

All that being said, I could see the DOJ mistrying these facts as a criminal case. To win a criminal case, all the jurors must agree that they have no reasonable doubt as to the charges. Therefore, even in a case that's 90% likely to favor the prosecution, a defense attorney would only need to plant one hardcore, stick-to-your-guns, do-what's-right, person on the jury to get a mistrial or force the rest of the jury to accept an acquittal. The caveat being that such a person would be pre-disposed to acquitting L.A., or favoring your arguments. Finding that person in the jury selection process is quite possible and thus the case is quite "winnable" from L.A.'s point of view.

**Note: The USADA hearing would NOT be done under this standard. If I remember correctly, the hearing would be in front of three arbitrators, two of three would have to agree that there's roughly a 60-80% chance USADA was right. The following arguments could be used (approximately) in any type of proceeding on this issue, civil, sports arbitration, or criminal.**

The best defense facts (as far as I can tell - I may be mistaken about 2) are that:

1. Armstrong never failed a test.
2. None of the witnesses ever failed a test when racing with Armstrong.
3. No one came forward *while* the supposed doping was going on.

So basically you have a bunch of old blood, some recent scientific guessworks about what the blood levels mean, riders who have never won anything like the TDF on their own (unless disqualified for post-Postal PED use), and disgruntled former employees. The prosecution's witnesses are angry at/jealous of a man who won millions and who is stiff-necked.

Best argument would be: this is an after-the-fact witch hunt, there's no true scientific evidence, LA played by the rules and you should too - acquit him.

I could win a criminal case like that. I could also lose it. Much would depend of if I could sucker-punch the prosecution's expert witnesses. My best strategy would be to attack the "relative" results of the scientific tests - small sample sizes, the possibility of LA being a freak of nature, the newness of the tests, the possibility that other future tests/techniques might disprove these results, etc., etc. And/or just bore the jury to tears while hammering the character issues (Clemens being an excellent example).

I suspect that the DOJ, after the Bonds/Clemens cases, made a call not to go after L.A. and potentially get a third black eye over what's perceived to be a "marginal" crime in the U.S. (which is surprising to a degree, but not astoundingly so.) The economy/election year may have played a role in this decision as well.

***

On the flip side, the prosecution's best facts are:

1. we have 25 people who will testify to the same thing.
2. there's a range of credibility here, but it's far fetched to think all 25 made up the same story.
3. it's too complicated a story to make up and get right.
4. (it's also unlikely that such a perfect way to cheat is imagined so completely but the witnesses but never actually used, despite the millions at stake.)
5. the pattern of behavior/movements we can document for LA (at the time) fits perfectly with the story.
6. the financial transactions we have for LA fits perfectly with the story.
7. the racing results (7 TDFs against dopers) fit perfectly with the story.
8. LA lied about portions of what was going on (Ferrari) lending credence to the story.
9. what scientific tests we have confirm the *type* of doping alleged (EPO/Blood Doping), and thus fit perfectly with the story.
10. "the story" also accounts for classic means, motive and opportunity, however you style them.
11. lastly, the other co-defendants are implicated in similar crimes with other riders.

So, ladies and gentlemen, what are the odds that 25 people, whatever you think of 2 or 3 or 4 of them, make up the same complicated story, a story which is backed up by all of this other corroborating evidence? Keep in mind this is evidence they simply did not know about when they came forward.
Maybe L.A. is the luckiest person in the world, winning 7 clean TDF titles, but became the unluckiest person in the world when 25 folks randomly accused him and the corroborating evidence of the denials, finances, and blood tests just "somehow," "randomly," match the random 25 accusations. Or Maybe LA simply doped and now his wall of silence and intimidation and guilt has finally crumbled.

I like the second one much better as a criminal case (and I'm a defense attorney). Under a clear and convincing standard, or the lesser preponderance of evidence standard, it's a winner. The major issue would be streamlining the case to keep it moving in front of the fact finder.

If anyone wants to chip in please do. These are my sunday morning, over coffee, speculations. I may have missed something.

 

[Average Reds]

Forgive me if I've missed some nuance in your last post, but it appears to me that the arguments you've laid out all revolve around proving that Armstrong used PEDs. My understanding of the criminal investigation is that they were investigating whether Armstrong (as the leader of the team) was guilty of violating federal fraud and racketeering statues. So not only did they need to prove that Armstrong used, they needed to prove that he used as part of a team-wide program directed by him and that such use constituted fraud and racketeering.

Let's stipulate the first two elements. I would think that it would still be hard to make the argument that a PED program within this one team constituted fraud and/or racketeering given how widespread the use of PEDs was within cycling as a whole.

I could be completely wrong here, as my knowledge of the law is limited to say the least. (Not a lawyer.) But I'm pretty sure that the legal burden of the prosecution is much greater than showing simple PED use, and the decision to drop the investigation doesn't surprise me in the least considering the other factors you listed. (The failed prosecutions of Bonds being the most relevant, as I don't think Clemens had walked yet when they dropped the investigation.)

 

[Rovin Romine]

Forgive me if I've missed some nuance in your last post, but it appears to me that the arguments you've laid out all revolve around proving that Armstrong used PEDs. My understanding of the criminal investigation is that they were investigating whether Armstrong (as the leader of the team) was guilty of violating federal fraud and racketeering statues. So not only did they need to prove that Armstrong used, they needed to prove that he used as part of a team-wide program directed by him and that such use constituted fraud and racketeering.

Let's stipulate the first two elements. I would think that it would still be hard to make the argument that a PED program within this one team constituted fraud and/or racketeering given how widespread the use of PEDs was within cycling as a whole.

I could be completely wrong here, as my knowledge of the law is limited to say the least. (Not a lawyer.) But I'm pretty sure that the legal burden of the prosecution is much greater than showing simple PED use, and the decision to drop the investigation doesn't surprise me in the least considering the other factors you listed. (The failed prosecutions of Bonds being the most relevant, as I don't think Clemens had walked yet when they dropped the investigation.)

It was meant to be a bit more general - just to trot out some arguments. Most of those arguments move across the different types of possible legal actions. Each different type of action has different elements to be proved, at a different standard (or level) of proof, and plays by slightly different evidentiary rules. One of the most damaging problems for LA in the criminal context would have been a rule that allows the prosecutor to introduce evidence of similar uncharged crimes or inextricably intertwined evidence. Basically that means that even if he were only charged for one year of wrongdoing, the jury might get to hear about the whole thing.

The feds don't have to commit to what the charges will be prior to the Grand Jury - they charge afterward according to the evidence gathered. In terms of what they could have charged him with, for most crimes it's enough to be a knowledgeable actor in the crime for you to be potentially found guilty. This used to be called "Accomplice Theory." Now there are several permutations, including "Conspiracy" but basically you're on the hook if you plan, know, help and/or benefit. There's also the RICO stuff; but that's usually used to hammer people who are part of an ongoing enterprise which does several bad things - it's quite possible he could have been charged under it though.

Anyway, if the feds went after him on some kind of criminal fraud theory, i.e., "You got us to pay you cash because you said that you were racing clean; we wanted to be associated with your clean racing," they could *either* show that he cheated personally or that he participated in and benefitted from the crime (e.g., he induced his teammates to cheat, or that he transported drugs, etc.

In short, there are many ways they could go after him, and not all of them show that he personally cheated.

I think in an actual trial you'd almost have to open the door to the issue of whether or not he personally cheated. And I suspect the outcome would center largely around that. I'd be surprised if there were trial where he was found not guilty of cheating personally, but guilty of only inducing Hamilton to use drugs. Anything's possible though.

That's just the criminal side. The civil side gets pretty sticky too - lower standard of proof, similar arguments and elements. They could go after him for civil fraud as well. $30 mil isn't chump change. (Unless the US Post wants to add "PED Mail" as an upgrade over "Priority Mail.")

I am really curious if we're going to hear anything about why the feds dropped the criminal investigation. I'm also surprised they didn't cooperate with the USADA.

Edit: Forgot to respond to the widespread use thing. That would be a defense actually - and sort of a jury nullification defense (i.e., he's guilty of the crime but acquit him anyway because of other factors.) A sharp judge would limit that type of argument. The Govt. could have gone after him on simple trafficking and drug use, or conspiracy, or fraud/scheme to defraud, none of which would require proof about what other people in cycling were doing or not doing.

In a civil context it might be a defense - that there was no actual fraud because everyone was cheating and all the sponsors knew it, including the US Postal Service. It'd be a hell of a defense though. I don't think it would work. You'd basically be saying that the US Postal Service knew Armstrong was lying from day-one and were laughing up their sleeves at the world as they paid him to cheat and win.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Shit hitting fan today for Lance as UCI strips him of his Tour titles.

Romine, I like the approach, I'll chime in later once I have a chance to catch up, been out of town.

 

[twothousandone]

a story which is backed up by all of this other corroborating evidence?

Is the EPO test admissable? I assume it would be hotly debated in front of the judge. Any chance he allows it?

EDIT: or she

 

[Rovin Romine]

Is the EPO test admissable? I assume it would be hotly debated in front of the judge. Any chance he allows it?

EDIT: or she

Dunno for sure - but it's a good question.

I just assumed for the purposes of throwing arguments together that it would be. Something from the blood testing (showing blood doping) and the financial trail with Ferrari would certainly come in, hence the argument.

In a criminal context, I'm pretty sure the EPO test would come in if they were proceeding under some kind of conspiracy/fraud theory to get around the statute of limitations on the earliest bad acts. It was a consensual test, so I'm not sure it would be suppressible in a criminal context on constitutional grounds. Assuming he wasn't charged with EPO use at the time of the test (in which case it would definitely come in) a prosecutor proceeding under an alternative crime (fraud) would probably argue that the test was crucial to their narrative of how things happened and should be allowed in front of the jury. That's sort of a slight of hand, but allowable. The result of the test probably wouldn't be stipulated to by the defense. The prosecution would have to call an expert and then both sides would be able to argue to the jury what the results of the test meant (i.e., if they were valid or not). If the samples were destroyed you'd probably have a good argument for excluding them on procedural fairness grounds.

In a civil context, it could possibly be excluded from the jury's consideration. You could argue that an unreliable test would be presumptively incredibly prejudicial in light of its minimal probative value - hence the test should be vetted before the jury heard testimony about it, allowing the judge to essentially decide whether it was a reliable enough piece of evidence to put in front of a jury. You can also do that in a criminal context, but most judges just let it go in and let the attorneys fight it out in front of the jury. (Otherwise the court hears the testimony once, and the jury hears it again - judges generally don't like to do that.) Either way, there wouldn't be a trial until the defense had a chance to review the sample with their own experts. Honestly, I've never had the occasion to try to exclude a drug test in my civil practice so far, so I'm just guessing as to the civil context.

Cripes - this is like a bad law school exam. (LOL).

 

[Rovin Romine]

Kind of an update for posterity's sake. Armstrong resigned from his position on the Board of Directors at Livestrong today. With the loss of all his advertising sponsors, the lifetime ban, and this final severance from his famous charity, that might be the final chapter in the Armstrong story.

There's still the issue of whether or not the testers/UCI were complicit. Also, it's possible folks will sue to recover salary/wages, etc. If so I'll try to post any news.

**

Public opinion seems to have swung radically against him since the allegations first came out. As much as I'm glad that the investigation shone a spotlight on doping in cycling, and as much as I'm not surprised Armstrong (kinda) stuck to his guns and (definitely) never admitted doping or wrong doing, part of me thinks something more could have been salvaged from this if he simply admitted what he did.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Tufts rescinds Armstrong's honorary degree. Mostly I'm posting this from surprise. I didn't know they could be rescinded; but then again I never really thought about it before.

http://www.boston.com/yourcampus/news/tufts/2012/11/tufts_university_rescinds_lance_armstrongs_honorary_degree.html

 

[jose melendez]

Yeah, UMass yanked one from Robert Mugabe some years ago.

 

[jose melendez]

Public opinion seems to have swung radically against him since the allegations first came out. As much as I'm glad that the investigation shone a spotlight on doping in cycling, and as much as I'm not surprised Armstrong (kinda) stuck to his guns and (definitely) never admitted doping or wrong doing, part of me thinks something more could have been salvaged from this if he simply admitted what he did.

I've heard a few stories on NPR in the last week walking through how it all worked, including an excellent one on Planet Money. The evidence is pretty damning. Lots of people on the team coming clean, a detailed description of how the operation worked etc.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Lance has 3 weeks to appeal UCI stripping him of his olympic bronze. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/lancearmstrong/9734371/Lance-Armstrong-has-three-weeks-to-appeal-UCI-decision-that-he-will-lose-all-titles-since-1998-including-Olympic-bronze.html

 

[Orange Julia]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-said-to-weigh-admission-of-doping.html?hp&_r=0

Lance Armstrong, who this fall was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles for doping and barred for life from competing in all Olympic sports, has told associates and antidoping officials that he is considering publicly admitting that he used banned performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions during his cycling career, according to several people with direct knowledge of the situation. He would do this, the people said, because he wants to persuade antidoping officials to restore his eligibility so he can resume his athletic career.

I am really conflicted about this. I was willing to suspend disbelief as long as he was still adamant about not doping...

 

[Pearl Wilson]

Somebody I follow on Twitter with a good one that echos my opinion:

Sun preparing to admit it rises in east.

 

[johnmd20]

I, for one, am SHOCKED that Lance is considering admitting to doping. How could he ever do this to us? To the children?

Jeez, this is the least surprising news we've ever had in doping. Every top 10 guy in cycling doped. But Lance tried to tell everyone that the top, #1 guy didn't dope? Sure Lance. Oh yeah, 10 of his former teammates came out and said he doped, too.

But I guess nobody believed Lance b/c if people did believe, whatever market research survey his people did would have indicated he shouldn't admit to doping.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Curious. I wonder why he's doing this.

If he does, I can't imagine a more meaningless admission/apology. What can he say that hasn't already been brought to light?

Most of the civil suits mentioned in the news seem to be winners, regardless of an admission. And this article suggests Armstrong will hold on to a great deal of the money he earned through his "clean" image: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/your-money/lance-armstrong-wealth-likely-to-withstand-doping-charges.html?pagewanted=all

 

[twothousandone]

This is an interesting development. Doesn't he risk a ton of legal action if he admits to 1) doping and 2) the other stuff like organizing cover-ups and intimidating witnesses? There was a claim he bumped into Hamilton in Colorado, but witness tampering never seemed all that easy to prove. If he just admits to doping, then he can't "rehabilitate" because of all the other stuff. But the other stuff really risks significant costs, possibly including jail time. Or I am off on that?

And if it's "I did take performance enhancing drugs, but. . . " at but I tune out.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

I'm sure the "considering" is code for, spending significant time on the phone and in conference with a team of attorney's who are outlining all legal and procedural ramifications of his admission. Which I assume would mean some form of immunity from prosecutions, financial repercussions and attempting to pave his return to the ironman circuit.

I noticed on twitter he completed some monster swim workout about a week ago. No one swims 3500 meters for shits and giggles. Things are happening behind the scenes.

 

[Kremlin Watcher]

Well, for one thing he wants to be admitted back to racing Ironman and he wants to compete for the Ironman world championship, which he thinks he can win. The World Triathlon Corporation (runs Ironman) is a party to all the global anti-doping pacts. So as long as he is under sanction by the global and US anti-doping agencies, he is not eligible to compete in Ironman. I'm sure that is part of the consideration (although I imagine there are many others as well). Part of these conversations are, one can imagine, with the folks at Ironman to understand if such an admission would allow him to do Ironman.

That's also why he swims 3500 meters.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Would Ironman want him? (I'm seriously asking - I can see huge pros and huge cons for any entity trying to help Armstrong at this point.)

 

[Kremlin Watcher]

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Up until the ban, Ironman loved him, as his huge celebrity and success in the sport (he racked up some podiums in 70.3 races and was, it seems, poised for full Ironman podium-level racing) made for great publicity for the Ironman brand. But at the same time, if he is confirmed officially as a doper, I would have thought Ironman would want to distance themselves from him. It's viewed as a pretty clean sport, as none of the top athletes have the financial means to cheat at a high level. The top pros (maybe 10-15 athletes) make maybe mid-six figures, and are subject to standard WADA testing regimes, so they don't have access to the doping technologies that can work, and are thus probably clean. Accepting Armstrong back into the Ironman community could tarnish the brand that they are so studiously trying to build. But I'm pretty sure Armstrong's goal is to get back into Ironman; I don't know how the calculus of his celebrity value to the sport versus his potential to taint it works out.

 

[SumnerH]

Would Ironman want him? (I'm seriously asking - I can see huge pros and huge cons for any entity trying to help Armstrong at this point.)

Ratings. Which are pretty much everything. I can't imagine that Armstrong would hurt ratings for a major tri, and it's very likely that he'd help them.

 

[Orange Julia]

Armstrong do to a "no holds barred" interview with Oprah....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/lance-armstrong-oprah-interview_n_2435616.html?1357694909

During this special 90-minute episode of Oprah’s Next Chapter, which will air January 17 at 9/8c on OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network, Armstrong will address the alleged doping scandal and charges of lying about the use of performance-enhancing drugs throughout his cycling career.

Does he really think that he can cop to lying all these years and it will be ok? Because I am not sure it will be...

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

From a ratings standpoint, the Ironman telecasts stand about a billion percent better chance of me watching if Lance is racing. It's a sport without a brand name contestant, and he's as big as it gets.

Oprah is an interesting twist, when compared to the last known celebrity "I screwed up" confession (Tiger Woods), the one on one press conference where you wear a tie is no longer at the top of the list. I fully expect a complete confession with a heavy dose of "I got sucked up into thinking it was the only way I could compete". If he comes across well, he'll be set. Endorsement deals, competition, and famous cancer foundation guy...all back at full steam in about 6 months.

 

[Orange Julia]

I don't know. I am an ardent supporter of Lance Armstrong. I was willing to suspend disbelief because while he might have been a cheat I felt that he wasn't a liar (i know, what's the difference if he was cheating he was clearly lying) but his years of claiming to not be doping....and then to just come out and say "oh well, yeah i did, sorry about all those lies, and all those lives i ruined (i'm looking at you Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton and everyone else who was labeled a traitor), I hope you'll forgive me and buy my next book..." I don't believe that he will win people like me back. He's better off continuing to lie, in my opinion.

But if he's getting a jillion dollars to do the Ironman, then I suppose i could see why he would do it. But i don't support the decision regardless, on the off chance he calls and asks me my opinion.

 

[Rovin Romine]

But if he's getting a jillion dollars to do the Ironman, then I suppose i could see why he would do it.

That's one of the things I find so weird about this. You have to assume that any lifting of his ban is predicated on an admission of use - probably more like a full confession. If he does that, he certainly will lose any pending and future civil suits (I mean he'll probably lose anyway, but this makes it a certainty.) So you subtract the civil suit money from his net worth, and you add whatever he gains through:

1) Book Deal/Tell All
2) Lecture/Speaking circuit
3) New Iron Man or other sport revenue, including sponsorships (which only come if the ban is lifted and someone actually wants to pick him up again.)

I have to think a lot of people who are "holdouts" on the "Did he dope" question would feel like Julia does - that an admission confirms the worst, and that their loyalty has been betrayed. Question is - are the "houldouts" Armstrong's only real remaining fan base? Can he get back to full steam quickly as Paul suggests?

To look at it dispassionately, on balance, an admission-rehab route seems very risky. Apart from a tell all book, or any revenue he can grab at that moment, he may just become another has-been in many folks (and sponsors) eyes. I haven't really looked at the civil suits much, but if there's anything potentially punitive in there, he could stand to lose a lot of money, depending on the number of and nature of the suits.

Regardless, a confession may be good for his soul, and at the end of the day, he'll likely have enough for him and his family to live very comfortably.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

I am a sucker as anybody when it comes down to apologies and second chances. I understand when people screw up or make questionable choices out of conflicting imperatives.

I am in no mood to forgive Lance Armstrong. I suspected he was doping from the start and that suspicion solidified many years ago. The problem with Armstrong is that not only he made a very cynical choice to dope, he made an even more cynical choice to lie through his teeth about it with a great deal of nerve. More to the point, he destroyed people's careers, people who wanted to do the right thing. He had many chances to admit guilt and he's deciding to do so right at the time when he's got no outs.

So a teary eyed apology won't work. I could be swayed if he admitted guilt, appeared non-apologetic and went on a full-fledged attack against the inconsistencies and weaknesses of the anti-doping regime which make doping a rational strategy. I could actually respect that more than any contrition he shows, because any such contrition I would consider utterly fake.

 

[Tony the Pony]

Lance Armstrong is a fookin scumbag.

Not only the biggest cheat of them all - a fookin asshole first class. If you submit this picture to rest of the world

to merely rub in that no matter what has transpired lately and how the castle collapsed all around him, the big champion is still surrounded my his maillots jaunes in Texas and who gives a fuck, really? I can only hope that the day he shows his face at a cycling meet one of the literally thousands of aspiring cyclists that just didn't not make it professionally over the last 20 years and have had to revert back to delivering mail in Aalst, the family butchershop in Suze la Rousse or driving a truck filled with shrimp to be cleaned in Morocco each month looks him in the face, says something like "this is from all of us nobodies that did not go through all these lengths to cheat to get ahead" and then beats the twat waffle to a pulp.

Armstrong on Oprah? Pfffft.

 

[Orange Julia]

he will lose me forever if he goes on Oprah with a mea culpa. And he better seriously explain how he was able to get away with it all this time and really clean up the sport, but he still won't get me back. I could have accepted the lie, but not the truth after all the lies.

 

[twothousandone]

Armstrong on Oprah? Pfffft.

Will Oprah ambush him with Hamilton, Landis and Betsy Andreu waiting backstage? I'd tune in to see that. Too bad he isn't going on Jerry Springer.

The righteous indignation and careers/live ruin while he was backing up his lies are what he really has to account for. I just don't see how he does that.

 

[Wings]

I get a Pete Rose apology feeling on this one. Lots of people will watch and be like, "yeah, duh..." and then move on. I can't see how he stays relevant again, but I'm sure his team has a plan.

 

[Nick Kaufman]

Will Oprah ambush him with Hamilton, Landis and Betsy Andreu waiting backstage? I'd tune in to see that. Too bad he isn't going on Jerry Springer.

The righteous indignation and careers/live ruin while he was backing up his lies are what he really has to account for. I just don't see how he does that.

Precisely. The indignant denials along with the ruining of people's lives are the key issues here.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Guys keep in mind its not about what "we" think, and by "we" I mean somewhat intelligent people with the ability to develop original thoughts on topics where we don't rely on others for our opinion.

It's about what the sheep think. The Espn watching, fanboy bullshit masses that buy anything shoved down their throat...so when I say things will be right in about 6 months, I'm really talking about his audience and corporate sports america's ability to get them to buy whatever they decide to sell with Lance's name...programming, foundation, Ironman, whatever...he'll be relevant again, just not as genuinely popular.

 

[Van Everyman]

For me, a big piece of this is not just the lying -- it's the full-fledged conspiracy he was operating to keep the lie going. He can tell Oprah how sorry he is, that it was wrong, etc. But it's a lot harder to explain the lengths he went to cover it all up -- the payoffs, the threats, the massive operation he had to provide him with the drugs and avoid a positive test. My guess is that Oprah doesn't even touch the latter.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

It's about what the sheep think.

Maybe it is, but maybe it's also because Lance is too tired to keep everything going right now. I mean a series of lies is hard enough to keep going; a series of lies that is being unraveled through lawsuits, whistle-blower complaints; and various inquiries must be exhausting.

Lance lost me a long time ago. I don't really care what he says or does.

And as for his fortune, I would be shocked if he wasn't able to retain a good amount of it. If he hasn't spent the last five years making himself as judgement proof as possible, he's even dumber than I thought.

And he will join the OJ, Curt Schilling, Michael Miliken speaking circuit after he his done.

Sad.