If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   The Lance Armstrong Foundation drops the embarrassing Lance Armstrong bit from its name   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 24
    More: Sad, doping scandals, Lance Armstrong Foundation, testicular cancers, Broadwell, United States Anti-Doping Agency, Old News, Tour de France, rallying  
•       •       •

1556 clicks; posted to Sports » on 15 Nov 2012 at 4:00 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



24 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-14 11:39:41 PM  
So just Foundation now?

cache.io9.com
 
2012-11-14 11:51:38 PM  
The Just Another Cancer Foundation

/catchy
 
2012-11-15 12:00:12 AM  
mediafiremp3.com
 
2012-11-15 12:02:54 AM  

NowhereMon: So just Foundation now?

[cache.io9.com image 640x360]


CEO Hari Seldon?
 
2012-11-15 09:20:32 AM  
How much money has he raised for cancer research and care? How much awareness has he created? Didn't he pretty much invent the wristband-affliction thing?

Maybe we can cut him a little slack for cheating at a dumb bicycle race.
 
2012-11-15 09:31:17 AM  
www.accelerator3359.com

???
 
2012-11-15 09:31:50 AM  
Lance Armstrong has done more to cure cancer than cancer researchers ever have.

He is a patriot. A cancer warrior AND a survivor.
 
2012-11-15 09:37:23 AM  

NowhereMon: So just Foundation now?


We're all done here.
 
2012-11-15 10:29:44 AM  
That sucks, Everything he has done for cancer wiped away over a bike race. They cant even prove if he cheated or not. And if he did who cares it a bike race in france.
 
2012-11-15 10:53:08 AM  
d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net
 
2012-11-15 11:28:07 AM  
acuratola.com
 
2012-11-15 12:39:05 PM  
So now it's just The Foundation, with nothing on top? Sounds like we'll need to build it up, buttercup.
 
2012-11-15 12:40:07 PM  

Pontious Pilates: How much money has he raised for cancer research and care? How much awareness has he created? Didn't he pretty much invent the wristband-affliction thing?

Maybe we can cut him a little slack for cheating at a dumb bicycle race.


The bolded part is how he has done good in this world.

The underlined part is why he should be put into a cannon and fired at the nearest asteroid.

It's farking CANCER. Why are you spending money to make us aware of it? Spend some farking money curing it.
 
2012-11-15 01:09:05 PM  

roc6783: Pontious Pilates: How much money has he raised for cancer research and care? How much awareness has he created? Didn't he pretty much invent the wristband-affliction thing?

Maybe we can cut him a little slack for cheating at a dumb bicycle race.

The bolded part is how he has done good in this world.

The underlined part is why he should be put into a cannon and fired at the nearest asteroid.

It's farking CANCER. Why are you spending money to make us aware of it? Spend some farking money curing it.


I understand the sentiment (mostly because the pink in the NFL pisses me off), but the whole "awareness" thing is just a euphemism. It just sounds better than "fundraising marketing". Spending money for fundraising is necessary, for this and other cancer organizations.

/still in favor of losing all the pink.
 
2012-11-15 01:21:47 PM  

skrame: roc6783: Pontious Pilates: ***snip***

I understand the sentiment (mostly because the pink in the NFL pisses me off), but the whole "awareness" thing is just a euphemism. It just sounds better than "fundraising marketing". Spending money for fundraising is necessary, for this and other cancer organizations.

/still in favor of losing all the pink.


Counterpoint

Also, the name of the company that created the site: Bells International - Awareness Event Marketing, Products, and Fulfillment
 
2012-11-15 01:46:18 PM  
abcnews.go.com 
And not a single fark was given that day.
 
2012-11-15 02:43:17 PM  

NowhereMon: So just Foundation now?

[cache.io9.com image 640x360]


Nice
 
2012-11-15 02:43:39 PM  

abhorrent1: [abcnews.go.com image 478x269] 
And not a single fark was given that day.


i prefer:

abcnews.go.com
haters gotta hate
 
2012-11-15 07:00:54 PM  
I'm more of a strictly hockey fan than a sports fan, so...can anyone recall a case where an athlete was so (legitimately) disgraced?
 
2012-11-15 08:56:01 PM  
inner ted

i prefer:

troll.jpg

trolls gotta troll

/ftfy 
//figured you would drop by and sh*t on this thread
 
2012-11-16 10:17:26 AM  

New Age Redneck: inner ted

i prefer:

troll.jpg

trolls gotta troll

/ftfy 
//figured you would drop by and sh*t on this thread


o look

moar crying

shall we pick up where we left off... o wait, we just did

/your ignorant tears are delicious
 
2012-11-16 01:32:49 PM  
I think they brought discredit to their whole sport. I mean they had to go back 50 people to find someone who didnt cheat..
 
2012-11-16 05:16:11 PM  

New Age Redneck: inner ted

i prefer:

troll.jpg

trolls gotta troll

/ftfy 
//figured you would drop by and sh*t on this thread


Nhojwolfe: I think they brought discredit to their whole sport. I mean they had to go back 50 people to find someone who didnt cheat..


yes... please further explain how dam near the whole field was cheating but why we should single out mr. armstrong for all our rage

do be careful though, you may cause some to tear up
 
2012-11-16 09:24:07 PM  
inner ted

yes... please further explain how dam near the whole field was cheating

[citation needed]

but why we should single out mr. armstrong for all our rage

I. SUMMARY OF USADA'S REASONED DECISION
As most observers of cycling acknowledge, cycling in the grand tours, of which the Tour de France is the most important, is a team sport. Lance Armstrong winning seven consecutive Tour de France titles was touted not just as an individual achievement, but as a team achievement rivaling the greatest in professional sports history.
Lance Armstrong himself has said that the story of his team is about how it "evolved from . . . the Bad News Bears into the New York Yankees."10 However, as demonstrated in this Reasoned Decision, the achievements of the USPS/Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team, including those of Lance Armstrong as its leader, were accomplished through a massive team doping scheme, more extensive than any previously revealed in professional sports history. More than a dozen of Armstrong's teammates, friends and former team employees confirm a fraudulent course of conduct that extended over a decade and leave no doubt that Mr. Armstrong's career on the USPS/Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team was fueled from start to finish by doping.
In this Reasoned Decision we discuss the evidence in significant detail, just as an arbitration panel would have done in announcing its decision had Mr. Armstrong been willing to allow the evidence in his case to be heard by independent arbitrators. It is important that the evidence in this case be discussed in detail for several reasons. First, transparency is a fundamental value of the anti-doping movement. It is important that facts relating to doping not be hidden from public view so that there is confidence in case outcomes and sport can learn from each case. Thus, the rules require USADA to issue a "reasoned decision" and this document meets that requirement. Second, over the years Mr. Armstrong and his representatives went to
10 SCA Hearing Transcript, pp. 1374-75 (testimony of Lance Armstrong).
Page | 5
great lengths to attack individuals who were willing to confirm the truth of his doping. Hopefully, this objective examination of some of the evidence of Mr. Armstrong's doping and tactics may rectify some of the harms to reputation brought about by those attacks.
As discussed in this Reasoned Decision, Mr. Armstrong did not act alone. He acted with the help of a small army of enablers, including doping doctors, drug smugglers, and others within and outside the sport and on his team. However, the evidence is also clear that Armstrong had ultimate control over not only his own personal drug use, which was extensive, but also over the doping culture of his team. Final responsibility for decisions to hire and retain a director, doctors and other staff committed to running a team-wide doping program ultimately flowed to him.
On paper, Armstrong's team contract provided him with "extensive input into rider and staff composition." In practice, however, as a team owner and by virtue of the power his rapidly accumulating titles conferred, his effective control was even greater.
Armstrong said, "we had one goal and one ambition and that was to win the greatest bike race in the world and not just to win it once, but to keep winning it."11 However, the path he chose to pursue that goal ran far outside the rules. His goal led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, more ruthlessly, to expect and to require that his teammates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own.
The evidence is overwhelming that Lance Armstrong did not just use performance enhancing drugs, he supplied them to his teammates. He did not merely go alone to Dr. Michele Ferrari for doping advice, he expected that others would follow. It was not enough that his teammates give maximum effort on the bike, he also required that they adhere to the doping program outlined for them or be replaced. He was not just a part of the doping culture on his
11 SCA Hearing Transcript, p. 1346 (testimony of Lance Armstrong).
Page | 6
team, he enforced and re-enforced it. Armstrong's use of drugs was extensive, and the doping program on his team, designed in large part to benefit Armstrong, was massive and pervasive. When Mr. Armstrong refused to confront the evidence against him in a hearing before
neutral arbitrators he confirmed the judgment that the era in professional cycling which he dominated as the patron of the peloton was the dirtiest ever. Twenty of the twenty-one podium finishers in the Tour de France from 1999 through 2005 have been directly tied to likely doping through admissions, sanctions, public investigations or exceeding the UCI hematocrit threshold. Of the forty-five (45) podium finishes during the time period between 1996 and 2010, thirty-six (36) were by riders similarly tainted by doping.12
The evidence in the case against Lance Armstrong is beyond strong; it is as strong as, or stronger than, that presented in any case brought by USADA over the initial twelve years of USADA's existence. As explained below, the evidence is overwhelming that Mr. Armstrong and his team director, team doctors, team trainers and teammates cheated throughout the 1998 - 2010 time period.13 II. CHARGES AGAINST LANCE ARMSTRONG
The anti-doping rule violations for which Mr. Armstrong was sanctioned include: (1) Use and/or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO,
blood transfusions, testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.14
12 See Appendix K, Tour de France Podium Finishers Since 1996. This chart lists the podium finishers of the Tour de France for the last 15 years and notes any involvement in doping for each listed rider. 13 Mr. Armstrong was officially retired during some of 2005, 2006, 2007 and most of 2008.
14 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to the use or attempted use of prohibited substances and/or methods: USA Cycling Rules (Medical Control) (1997 - 2012); USOC NADP (1997 - 2012); USADA Protocol (2000 - 2012) (Prior to 2004 UCI's substantive rules relating to anti-doping rule violations and sanctions were incorporated into the USADA Protocol. In 2004 the substantive rules in the World Anti-Doping
Page | 7
(2) Possession of prohibited substances and/or methods including EPO, blood transfusions and related equipment (such as needles, blood bags, storage containers and other transfusion equipment and blood parameters measuring devices), testosterone, corticosteroids and/or masking agents.15
(3) Trafficking of EPO, testosterone, and/or corticosteroids.16 (4) Administration and/or attempted administration to others of EPO, testosterone,
and/or cortisone.17 (5) Assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other complicity
involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti-doping rule violations.18
Code relating to violations and sanctions were incorporated into the USADA Protocol and the USOC National Anti-Doping Policies.); UCI ADR 2, 52 (1997-2000); UCI ADR 4, 6, 7, 8, 130, 131, 133 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.2 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.1 and 21.2 (2009-present); and Code Articles 2.1 and 2.2 (2003-present).
15 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to the possession of prohibited substances and/or methods: USOC NADP (and incorporated provisions of Code); USADA Protocol (incorporated provisions of Code or UCI ADR); UCI ADR 52, 54, 93 (1997-2000); UCI ADR 130, 131, 135 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.6 (2005- 2008); UCI ADR 21.6 (2009-present); and Code Article 2.6 (2003-present). Prior to 2004 UCI's substantive rules relating to violations and sanctions were incorporated into the USADA Protocol. In 2004 the substantive rules in the Code relating to violations and sanctions were incorporated into the USADA Protocol and the USOC National Anti-Doping Policies.
16 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to trafficking and attempted trafficking: USOC NADP (and incorporated provisions of Code); USADA Protocol (incorporated provisions of Code or UCI ADR); UCI ADR 3, 135, 136 (2001-04); UCI ADR 15.7 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.7 (2009- present); and Code Article 2.7 (2003-present). 17 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to administration and/or attempted administration: USOC NADP (and incorporated provisions of Code); USADA Protocol (incorporated provisions of Code or UCI ADR); UCI ADR 1, 2, 54, 93 (1997-2000); UCI ADR 3, 133 (2001-2004); UCI ADR 15.8 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.8 (2009-present); and Code Article 2.8 (2003- present). 18 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up and other
Page | 8
III.
(6) Aggravating circumstances (including multiple rule violations and participated in a sophisticated scheme and conspiracy to dope, encourage and assist others to dope and cover up rule violations) justifying a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction.19
BACKGROUND A. Commencement of USADA's Broad Investigation of Doping in Cycling In November 2008 USADA proceeded to a hearing in a non-analytical case involving
U.S. cyclist Kayle Leogrande. Mr. Leogrande received a two year period of ineligibility for the use of erythropoietin (EPO). Subsequently, in January of 2009, USADA received information from a variety of sources with information about individuals who may have supplied Mr. Leogrande and other cyclists with performance enhancing drugs. Thereafter, USADA commenced an investigation into drug use and distribution within the Southern California cycling scene and began making inquiries and following up on various leads related to this issue.
USADA came to understand that Floyd Landis might have information useful to this effort. However, before USADA communicated with Mr. Landis on this topic, Paul Scott, an individual residing in Southern California, provided information to USADA Science Director Dr. Daniel Eichner confirming that Mr. Landis had information relevant to USADA's investigation
complicity involving one or more anti-doping rule violations and/or attempted anti- doping rule violations including: each of the above listed provisions and USOC NADP (and incorporated provisions of Code); USADA Protocol (incorporated provisions of Code or UCI ADR); UCI ADR 1, 2, 54, 93 (1997-2000); UCI ADR 3, 131,133 (2001- 2004); UCI ADR 15.8 (2005-2008); UCI ADR 21.8 (2009-present); Code Article 2.8 (2003-present).
19 USADA charged Mr. Armstrong with violations of the following specific rules applicable to aggravating circumstances: USOC NADP (and incorporated provisions of Code); USADA Protocol (incorporated provisions of Code or UCI ADR); UCI ADR 130 (4 years to life for intentional doping) (2001-2004); UCI ADR 305 (2009-present) and Code Article 10.6 (2009-present).
Page | 9
of doping in the Southern California cycling community and also providing information about the involvement of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Landis in doping on the U.S. Postal Service Team. On April 12, 2010, after communicating with Mr. Paul Scott about Mr. Landis'
information, Dr. Eichner met with Mr. Scott and received additional information from Mr. Scott about the U.S. Postal Service cycling team doping practices. In this meeting Mr. Scott described in great detail the doping program on the U.S. Postal Service team, including its use of blood transfusions, and the involvement of Mr. Armstrong, Dr. Ferrari, Mr. Bruyneel, Mr. Marti, Dr. del Moral, and a number of riders, including Mr. Landis.20
On April 20, 2010, after several communications about the matter with Mr. Landis, USADA CEO Travis Tygart met with Mr. Landis and discussed his anti-doping rule violations and those of others, and whether or not USADA would handle the information appropriately. USADA assured Mr. Landis that it would deal with the information as provided under its rules and mandate and Mr. Landis agreed to assist USADA in this regard.21
Subsequently, of his own volition, Mr. Landis sent to Mr. Steve Johnson, the President of USA Cycling, an email dated April 30, 2010, in which Mr. Landis detailed some of the admissions he had previously made to USADA during the April 20, 2010, meeting and which had also been previously disclosed to USADA in the April 12, 2010 meeting between Dr. Eichner and Mr. Scott.22
20 Affidavit of Paul Scott, ¶¶ 20-23. 21 Affidavit of Paul Scott, ¶ 24. 22 A copy of this email is attached as Exhibit B to the Affidavit of Floyd Landis which is provided in Appendix A.
Page | 10
B. Criminal Investigation
It was widely reported that the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, Mr. Andre Birotte, commenced a grand jury investigation of matters related to the U.S. Postal Service cycling team in early 2010. As noted above, USADA has been investigating doping on the USPS team since at least April 12, 2010. During the period from late 2010 until February 3, 2012, USADA conducted only a handful of witness interviews in deference to, and out of respect for, the federal investigation.
Upon announcement that Mr. Birotte had discontinued the investigation by his office USADA promptly proceeded to schedule interviews of potential witnesses, most of whom were interviewed between March 15 and June 12, 2012.
C. USADA's Notice of Anti-Doping Review Board Proceedings and Notice of Opportunity to Contest USADA's Charges in Arbitration
On June 12, 2012, USADA notified Mr. Armstrong, Johan Bruyneel, Dr. Pedro Celaya, Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, Dr. Michele Ferrari and Mr. Jose "Pepe" Marti (collectively, the "Respondents") via letter that USADA was "opening a formal action against each of you based on evidence that . . . you engaged in anti-doping rule violations . . . from 1998 to [the] present."23 USADA notifed the Respondents that the "action is being brought as a single consolidated action because for a significant part of the period from January 1, 1998, through the present, each of the Respondents has been part of a doping conspiracy involving team officials, employees, doctors, and elite cyclists of the USPS and Discovery Channel Cycling Teams who committed numerous violations of the Applicable Rules (the "USPS Conspiracy" or the "Conspiracy").
23 USADA's June 12, 2012, notice letter is submitted as part of Appendix G.
Page | 11
Mr. Armstrong immediately disclosed the confidential notice letter to the media and he and his representatives issued press statements attacking USADA. The Respondents each followed up with public statements denying USADA's assertion that they had engaged in anti- doping rule violations.24
On June 27, 2012, the USADA Anti-Doping Review Board recommended that USADA proceed with its proceedings against each of the Respondents. On June 28, 2012, USADA issued its charging letter setting forth USADA's recommended sanctions and specifying that pursuant to the USADA Protocol the Respondents had until July 9, 2012, in which to notify USADA whether Respondents wished to challenge USADA's proposed sanction by requesting a hearing before a panel of neutral arbitrators.25 Mr. Armstrong subsequently sought and received an extension to July 13, 2012, of his time to request a hearing before neutral arbitrators. That deadline was again voluntarily extended by USADA after Mr. Armstrong filed his federal lawsuit described below.
D. Armstrong's Filing of Federal Lawsuit
On July 9, 2012, Armstrong filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. Several hours later, United States District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed the complaint, stating, "This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty
24 Two of the Respondents, Dr. del Moral and Dr. Ferrari, chose not to contest USADA's charges through the established arbitration process, three of the Respondents, Mr. Bruyneel, Dr. Celaya and Mr. Marti, requested arbitration under the USADA Protocol. Due to the fact that the Respondents were engaged in an integrated doping conspiracy the evidence involving each Respondent is closely intertwined making it necessary, appropriate and, indeed, unavoidable, in this Reasoned Decision to address evidence involving Respondents whose cases have not yet gone to a hearing. In addition, the public denials and statements of the Respondents have removed any obligation to keep confidential the evidence in their cases.
25 USADA's charging letter is a part of Appendix G.
Page | 12
mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims." Armstrong filed an amended complaint on July 10, 2012. In his amended complaint, Armstrong claimed he had "no valid, legal or enforceable arbitration agreement and jurisdiction rests with UCI." Armstrong also claimed USADA's procedures were unconstitutional and did not comport with due process.
E. Federal Court's Order Dismissing Armstrong Lawsuit
By Order dated August 20, 2012, Judge Sparks dismissed Armstrong's amended complaint. The Court held: (1) "the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process"; (2) "Armstrong's challenges to USADA's jurisdiction, and his arguments about which rules govern, can and should be made in arbitration"; (3) "to the extent Armstrong wishes to challenge the validity of USA Cycling's regulations or the USADA Protocol, or to argue their provisions are inconsistent with UCI's rules, the Court finds he has agreed to do so through arbitration with USADA"; and (4) "the Court concludes Armstrong agreed to arbitrate with USADA, and its arbitration rules are sufficient, if applied reasonably, to satisfy due process."26
F. Armstrong's Refusal to Contest Charges Against Him in Arbitration Hearing Before Neutral Arbitrators
On August 23, 2012, three days after Judge Sparks dismissed his lawsuit, Armstrong published a statement indicating he would not elect to proceed to a hearing before the AAA under the USADA Protocol.27
26 Armstrong v. United States Anti-Doping Agency, ____ F.Supp 2nd. _____2012 WL 3569682 (W.D. Tex. 2012) (in the process of publication - only the Westlaw citation is currently available). A copy of the Judge Sparks' decision is included in Appendix E. 27 Mr. Armstrong's Statement and USADA's Response are part of Appendix I.
Page | 13
Had Mr. Armstrong not refused to confront the evidence against him in a hearing, the witnesses in the case of The United States Anti-Doping Agency v. Lance Armstrong would have testified under oath with a legal duty to testify truthfully or face potential civil and/or criminal consequences. Witness after witness would have been called to the stand and witness after witness would have confirmed the following: That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug EPO. That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong provided his teammates the banned drug EPO. That Lance Armstrong administered to a teammate the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong enforced the doping program on his team by threatening a rider with termination if he did not dope in accordance with the plan drawn up by Dr. Michele Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong's doping program was organized by Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong pushed his teammates to use Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong used banned blood transfusions to cheat. That Lance Armstrong would have his blood withdrawn and stored throughout the year and then receive banned blood transfusions in the team doctor's hotel room on nights during the Tour de France. That Lance Armstrong surrounded himself with drug runners and doping doctors so that he could achieve his goal of winning the Tour de France year after year. That Lance Armstrong and his handlers engaged in a massive and long running scheme to use drugs, cover their tracks, intimidate witnesses, tarnish reputations, lie to hearing panels and the press and do whatever was necessary to conceal the truth.
There will not be a hearing in this case because Lance Armstrong strategically avoided it. He voluntarily gave up the right to cross examine the witnesses against him. He abandoned his opportunity to testify (and avoided the prospect of being cross examined) under oath in response to USADA's witnesses. Therefore, the truth in this case is set forth in writing in this Reasoned Decision. The witnesses cited in this Reasoned Decision have testified under oath, through
Page | 14
affidavits in which they have sworn to tell the truth under penalties of perjury. Lance Armstrong does not testify this way - because he did not want to testify - he wanted to walk away and avoid the truth telling. However, his refusal to attend a hearing still speaks volumes.
Now that the witnesses have testified it is USADA's responsibility to issue its Reasoned Decision. This Reasoned Decision is the true record of the evidence in the case of The United States Anti-Doping Agency v. Lance Armstrong.
IV. DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING USADA'S CHARGES A. Introduction
1. Standard of Proof
Article 3.1 of the Code provides that: "[t]he standard of proof shall be whether the Anti- Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made." As noted in the comment to Article 3.1, this standard of proof is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. Thus, for example, in proceedings in the United States to take away the license to practice of a doctor or lawyer, the applicable standard of proof is typically "clear and convincing evidence." In this case, the evidence against Mr. Armstrong is overwhelming. In USADA's view, it establishes his doping beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Means of Proof: Non-Analytical Evidence and Laboratory Evidence
The World Anti-Doping Code specifies that doping can be proved by "any reliable means."28 This case was initiated by USADA based on evidence other than a positive drug test. It is not necessary for there to have been a positive drug test in order for a rule violation to have
28 Code, Art. 3.2.
Page | 15
been established and many cases reflect this principle.29 It could not be otherwise because at any given time there are many drugs and methods of doping on the prohibited list that are not detectable through laboratory testing.
There is, however, evidence from a number of Mr. Armstrong's past samples that corroborate the other evidence of his doping. As explained below, had this matter gone to a hearing USADA would have asked the hearing panel to permit use of the scientific evidence to corroborate the testimony of its witnesses. However, the witness testimony and other document evidence is so strong USADA would have confidently proceeded to a hearing without any evidence from samples had the panel accepted the UCI's contention that only the UCI has jurisdiction to examine evidence gathered from samples collected by the UCI.
B. Chronological Review of Evidence of Lance Armstrong's Possession, Use, Trafficking and Administration of Banned Performance Enhancing Drugs and Other Relevant Events
1. 1998
Seven (7) eyewitnesses from the 1998 U.S. Postal Service cycling team have provided testimony to USADA regarding doping on the team in 1998.30 USADA also received testimony from two (2) additional witnesses, Italian professional cyclist Filippo Simeoni and Betsy Andreu, regarding events they witnessed in 1998 that were relevant to USADA's investigation.
In 1998 Jonny Weltz was the team director and Pedro Celaya the principal team doctor for the U.S. Postal Service Cycling Team. Riders on the team were using performance enhancing substances including EPO, testosterone, human growth hormone and cortisone as
29 USADA v. Montgomery, CAS 2004/O/645; USADA v. Gaines, CAS 2004/O/69; USADA v. Collins, AAA 30 1900000658 04; ASADA v. Wyper CAS A4/2007; USADA v. Leogrande, AAA No. 77 190 00111 08; USADA v. Stewart, AAA No. 77 190 110 10 USADA. 30 Cyclists George Hincapie, Frankie Andreu, Tyler Hamilton, Jonathan Vaughters, Christian Vande Velde, and team employee Emma O'Reilly.
Page | 16
confirmed by team employee Emma O'Reilly,31 and riders Frankie Andreu,32 Tyler Hamilton,33 George Hincapie34 and Jonathan Vaughters.35 The staff was clearly part of the doping operation.36 Frequently these drugs were administered by Dr. Celaya.37 Jonathan Vaughters recalls that Dr. Celaya would openly pass out EPO to team members.38 Emma O'Reilly recalls being asked to transport testosterone by a fellow team employee.39 Armstrong also required O'Reilly to dispose of used syringes following the Tour of the Netherlands.40
One of the most memorable events that year was the Festina Doping Scandal at the Tour de France. The Festina incident set the typically calm and affable Dr. Celaya on edge, and on the day of the second time trial, in a panic over a possible police raid, Dr. Celaya flushed tens of thousands of dollars of performance enhancing drugs down the toilet of the team's camper during the race.41
Armstrong began his comeback to the professional peloton in 1998. While the Tour de France was taking place in Europe Lance Armstrong, Jonathan Vaughters and Christian Vande Velde were competing in the Cascade Classic in Oregon.42
31 Affidavit of Emma O'Reilly, ¶¶ 34-40, 53-62. 32 Affidavit of Frankie Andreu, ¶¶ 45-46. 33 Affidavit of Tyler Hamilton, ¶¶ 25-27 (recalling Dr. Celaya introducing him to EPO and Andriol in 1997). 34 Affidavit of George Hincapie, ¶¶ 37-41. 35 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶¶ 24-28; 37-4940-48. 36 See Section IV.C., below. 37 Affidavit of Tyler Hamilton, ¶¶ 25-27; Affidavit of George Hincapie, ¶¶ 37-41; Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶¶ 28, 4042-43. 38 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 28. 39 Affidavit of Emma O'Reilly, ¶¶ 34-38. 40 Affidavit of Emma O'Reilly, ¶¶ 60-65. 41 Affidavit of Emma O'Reilly, ¶¶ 48-54; Affidavit of George Hincapie, ¶¶ 39-40. 42 Affidavit of Christian Vande Velde, ¶ 27.
Page | 17
a. Possession and use of EPO at the Vuelta a Espana
By 1998 Armstrong had been working with Dr. Michele Ferrari for approximately four years.43 By this time his former Motorola teammates George Hincapie and Frankie Andreu were aware of Armstrong's EPO use.44 Jonathan Vaughters also believed Armstrong was likely using EPO-there were some tell tale signs, such as Lance carrying around a thermos.45 However, prior to the 1998 Vuelta a Espana Vaughters could not be absolutely sure of Armstrong's EPO use.46 During this time frame several riders, in addition to Vaughters, saw Armstrong carrying a thermos and associated it with him using EPO.47
Late in the season Armstrong, Vaughters and Vande Velde all competed in the Vuelta a Espana.48 During the Vuelta Armstrong and Vaughters each confirmed that the other was using EPO. Armstrong made himself aware of the hematocrit readings of the other riders on the team and kidded Vaughters about how high Vaughters' hematocrit was.49
One evening while Vaugthers was in Armstrong's room borrowing Armstrong's laptop Armstrong injected himself in front of Vaughters with a syringe used for EPO injections, saying
43 Extensive evidence of Michele Ferrari's involvement in doping riders during the period from 1997 through 2010 is set forth below in Section IV.C.1. 44 Affidavit of George Hincapie, ¶¶ 30, 32 - 33; Affidavit of Frankie Andreu, ¶ 24-25. 45 It is necessary to keep EPO cool at all times to prevent it from spoiling. Thermoses were used by riders to keep EPO cool and ice cubes rattling inside a coffee thermos in the middle of the summer were an indication the rider might be using EPO. Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 37. Other riders saw Lance carrying a thermos and believed it was for his EPO. See Affidavit of George Hincapie, ¶ 32; Affidavit of Tyler Hamilton, ¶ 36; Affidavit of Frankie Andreu, ¶ 46; Affidavit of Christian Vande Velde, ¶¶ 21, 85.
46 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 36. 47 Affidavit of Frankie Andreu, ¶ 46; Affidavit of Tyler Hamilton, ¶ 36; Affidavit of Christian Vande Velde, ¶¶ 21, 86; Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 37; see also Affidavit of George Hincapie, ¶ 32 (discussing use of thermos by riders on Motorola in 1996). 48 This race took place from September 5 - 27, 1998. 49 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶¶ 4139-40.
Page | 18
"[n]ow that you are doing EPO too, you can't go write a book about it."50 From that point forward Armstrong was open with Vaughters about Armstrong's use of EPO.51
Armstrong finished fourth at the Vuelta, a result which he described at the time as "pretty surprising."52 "It was the greatest and most amazing performance of my career," Armstrong said. "I just wanted to finish."53
b. Possession and use of cortisone
During the Vuelta, and subsequently at the World Championships that year, there were two events demonstrating Armstrong's reliance on cortisone as a doping substance. In the Vuelta towards the end of a tough day of riding Armstrong asked Vaughters and Vande Velde to return to the team car and retrieve a cortisone pill for him. The teammates obliged, however, Jonny Weltz told Vaughters he did not have any cortisone in the car. Thinking quickly, Weltz came up with a placebo, whittling down an aspirin pill and wrapping it in tin foil to give to Armstrong.54 Later, at the World Championships at Valkenberg in the Netherlands the U.S. riders arrived at their tent near the start of the race to find that Armstrong had asked his wife Kristin to wrap cortisone tablets in tin foil for him and his teammates. Kristin obliged Armstrong's request by wrapping the pills and handing them to the riders.55 One of the riders remarked, "Lance's wife is rolling joints."56
50 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 40. 51 Id. 52 Winning The Race Of His Life, Chicago Tribune, October 01, 1998. 53 Winning The Race Of His Life, Chicago Tribune, October 01, 1998. 54 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 41; Affidavit of Christian Vande Velde, ¶¶ 31-32. 55 Affidavit of Christian Vande Velde, ¶ 39. 56 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 48.
Page | 19
c. Use of a saline infusion at the World Championships
Armstrong, Vande Velde, Vaughters and Celaya stayed at a bed and breakfast for the 1998 World Championships.57 Their bedrooms opened into a common area.58 One morning a UCI drug tester appeared and started setting up in the common area.59 This prompted Dr. Celaya to go outside to the car and retrieve a liter of saline which he put under his rain coat and smuggled right past the UCI tester and into Armstrong's bedroom.60 Celaya closed the bedroom door and administered the saline to Armstrong to lower his hematocrit, without alerting the UCI tester to their activities.61 Vaughters recalled that he and Dr. Celaya later "had a good laugh about how he had been able to smuggle in saline and administer it to Lance essentially under the UCI inspector's nose."62
2. 1999
Seven (7) eyewitnesses from the 1999 U.S. Postal Service cycling team have provided testimony to USADA regarding doping on the team in 1999.63 USADA also received testimony from two (2) additional witnesses, Italian professional cyclist Filippo Simeoni and Betsy Andreu, regarding events they witnessed in 1999 that were relevant to USADA's investigation.
1999 brought a new team director and a new team doctor to the U.S. Postal Service team. Armstrong certainly had a hand in both changes.64 The outgoing doctor Pedro Celaya had not
57 Affidavit of Christian Vande Velde, ¶ 38; Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 46. 58 Id. 59 Id. 60 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 46; Affidavit of Christian Vande Velde, ¶ 38. 61 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 46.
62 Affidavit of Jonathan Vaughters, ¶ 47. 63 Cyclists George Hincapie, Frankie Andreu, Tyler Hamilton, Jonathan Vaughters, Christian Vande Velde, and team employee Emma O'Reilly. 64 Deposition of Bill Stapleton, p. 28 (Armstrong's U.S. Postal Service contract states, "Armstrong will have extensive input into rider and staff composition."), Armstrong's contract is Exhibit 2 to the Deposition of Mark Gorski which is part of Appendix Y (SCA materials).;
Page | 20
been aggressive enough for Armstrong in providing banned products.65 The new team director Johan Bruyneel was a newly retired rider from the ONCE program known for its organized team doping.66 The new doctor, Luis Garcia del Moral, was a former ONCE doctor.67
a. Focus on the Tour de France
Lance Armstrong would call this team the "Bad News Bears,"68 (an apparent reference to the 1970s era movies about a group of misfit and overmatched little league baseball players) but he had no intention they would stay this way for long. According to Bruyneel and Armstrong the year started with an unlikely goal, win the Tour de France, and a unique plan, avoid most of the races in the lead up to the Tour in exchange for a single minded focus on Tour preparation.69
Intended or not, the plan had several aspects that would decrease the risk and increase the reward of doping. First, the UCI had no organized out of competition testing program;70 so by avoiding most of the early season races Armstrong would be avoiding most of the drug testing to which he could be subjected in the lead up to the Tour. Second, even if someone had wanted to test Armstrong it would have been next to impossible to do so, as there existed no whereabouts program that required riders to provide their training location for testing. Armstrong's training program frequently took him far away from his residence in the south of France, to mountain
Deposition of Bill Stapleton, p. 86 (Q: who assembles these individuals, the nutritionist, the - team doctor, that kind of thing? A: Primarily Lance and Johan.); Additional

(blah blah blah)
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report