Lance Armstrong doping campaign exposes USADA's hypocrisy

Full story: The Washington Post

A federal judge wrote last week , "USADA's conduct raises serious questions about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives." You don't say.
Comments
1 - 7 of 7 Comments Last updated Aug 27, 2012
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 24, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

From the article:

Anyone who thinks an athlete has a fair shot in front of CAS should review the Alberto Contador case. Contador was found to have a minuscule, insignificant amount of clenbuterol in his urine during the 2010 Tour de France. After hearing 4,000 pages of testimony and debate, CAS acknowledged that the substance was too small to have been performance-enhancing and that its ingestion was almost certainly unintentional.

Therefore he was guilty. He received a two-year ban.

CAS’s rationale?“There is no reason to exonerate the athlete so the ban is two years,” one member of the panel said.

Would you want to go before that court?

The decision was so appalling that even the Tour runner-up Andy Schleck of Luxembourg couldn’t swallow it and refused to accept the title of winner.“There is no reason to be happy now,” Schleck said.“First of all, I felt bad for Alberto. I always believed in his innocence.. .&#8 201;. I battled with Contador in that race and I lost.”
//////////
litesong wrote:
Andy Schleck had as good a reason to denounce Cantador as anyone, after Cantador pedaled away from him after Andy's chain derailed on a mountain slope they both were battling on to defeat each other.

Yet, Schleck supported Cantador.

Truly, doping agencies are finding such miniscule levels of chemicals in blood samples, the agencies must consider & understand how such small amounts of chemistries can be in the bodies, completely by accident.

The nearly complete inability of the U.S. gov't & legal system to control drugs in society in general, is certainly causing these legalized witch hunts against athlete's, whose punishments are severe compared to their perceived crimes, than drug kingpins receive for their millions of pounds of drug trafficing.
phil

Clinton Township, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

since he passed all his drug tests and they are taking away his wins just shows how corrupt they are.

Since: Nov 09

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Excerpt from Tracee Hamilton:

Armstrong never failed a drug test. He was tested in competition, out of competition. He was tested at the Olympics, at the Tour de France, at dozens if not hundreds of other events. And he never failed a test. We know this because if he had, Travis T. Tygart, the head of USADA, would have personally delivered the results to every home in America, like a grim little Santa Claus.

Instead, Tygart gathered a group of people who swear they saw Armstrong doping. There has been no trial, no due process, but in the minds of many, that testimony outweighs the results of hundreds of drug tests.

People lie. Blood and urine usually don’t.

“barock's arab winter”

Since: Mar 10

Huntington, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 25, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

litesong wrote:
From the article:
Anyone who thinks an athlete has a fair shot in front of CAS should review the Alberto Contador case. Contador was found to have a minuscule, insignificant amount of clenbuterol in his urine during the 2010 Tour de France. After hearing 4,000 pages of testimony and debate, CAS acknowledged that the substance was too small to have been performance-enhancing and that its ingestion was almost certainly unintentional.
Therefore he was guilty. He received a two-year ban.
CAS’s rationale?“There is no reason to exonerate the athlete so the ban is two years,” one member of the panel said.
Would you want to go before that court?
The decision was so appalling that even the Tour runner-up Andy Schleck of Luxembourg couldn’t swallow it and refused to accept the title of winner.“There is no reason to be happy now,” Schleck said.“First of all, I felt bad for Alberto. I always believed in his innocence.. .&#8 201;. I battled with Contador in that race and I lost.”
//////////
litesong wrote:
Andy Schleck had as good a reason to denounce Cantador as anyone, after Cantador pedaled away from him after Andy's chain derailed on a mountain slope they both were battling on to defeat each other.
Yet, Schleck supported Cantador.
Truly, doping agencies are finding such miniscule levels of chemicals in blood samples, the agencies must consider & understand how such small amounts of chemistries can be in the bodies, completely by accident.
The nearly complete inability of the U.S. gov't & legal system to control drugs in society in general, is certainly causing these legalized witch hunts against athlete's, whose punishments are severe compared to their perceived crimes, than drug kingpins receive for their millions of pounds of drug trafficing.
The French didn't like having the name of the race LE TOUR DE LANCE, so they finally found a way to torpedo him.

Our corrupt politicians are minor leaguers compared to the pros in Europe. You need to go to a special school in France and major in bureaucracy (french word btw) to work for the govt there.
Michalis

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

A lot of athletes never failed a drug test, yet proved to be cheaters in recent years. Test methods have improved.

As much as I respect Armstrong's effort he put into the sport, especially after battling cancer, he is a cheater, probably just like every one of his competitors during his active years, Jan Ullrich to be named as the prime example. Everybody used EPO, technically, Armstrong did not have an "unfair" advantage.

Why hunt only Armstrong and not other athletes and the respective doctors and managers? Because he is a symbol. It is certainly a witch hunt. Other people involved are not worth the effort. Armstrong is. Armstrong represents the generation of athletes that degraded the sport, making many supporters and sponsors lose interest to it.
turtle

Huddersfield, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

A lot of athletes never failed a drug test, yet proved to be cheaters in recent years. Test methods have improved.

As much as I respect Armstrong's effort he put into the sport, especially after battling cancer, he is a cheater, probably just like every one of his competitors during his active years, Jan Ullrich to be named as the prime example. Everybody used EPO, technically, Armstrong did not have an "unfair" advantage.

Why hunt only Armstrong and not other athletes and the respective doctors and managers? Because he is a symbol. It is certainly a witch hunt. Other people involved are not worth the effort. Armstrong is. Armstrong represents the generation of athletes that degraded the sport, making many supporters and sponsors lose interest to it.

spot on - the first sane and balanced comment on this thread.
thx Michalis
Graham

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 27, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fact professional sport is a circus its sole purpose is to entertain.

Fact if you use every tool at your disposal it wont make you a champion but it may give you an advantage?

Probs by using every tool you may encounter some unplesant side effects especially if you spend half your life in the jockey position?

Fact administraters rules oficials pen pushers etal are extremly boring people but they are essential in very small doses?

Fact allmost nobody cares what goes on behind the scenes at the circus as long as they are entertained?

Fact we don't mind someone winning once or twice but we loath serial winners?

Fact I'm bored now.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••