From: mrn10sdave
To: Travis Tygart and David Howman
Dear Travis and David:
According to a New York Times report, Lance Armstrong is considering confessing to using performance-enhancing drugs in the hopes of returning to competition.
Please don't cave on this. If
you don't uphold the entire ban in a situation like this then what's
even the point of your job?
Substantial assistance reduction is
intended to be afforded to athletes who provide useful information that
leads to other cases (and presumably a leg up in the general anti-doping
fight). I see absolutely no value (or legal standing, for that matter)
in allowing any type of reduction in this case.
The time to
provide substantial assistance, if he indeed was doping, was when the
original positive tests came back (if those reports are true). That
burden partly rests on the anti-doping officials for not having a regime
in place to prevent loopholes for getting out of a positive test, but
it also reflects on the individual who knowingly lies within the system
(if that's what he did). Of course, it would probably be unrealistic to
expect an athlete to confess when they have an easy out (such as a
back-dated prescription). I'll even give him a pass here.
Where I
can't give him a pass is treating people like dirt and suing people and
organizations (successfully) for making allegations that he doped.
Then he perjured himself (if he indeed admits that he doped) in the US
justice system. Then he had a fairly lengthy period of investigation,
and he had substantial time to respond to the investigation. The time
for substantial assistance would have been when USADA was putting the
case together. Even then, the main purpose of substantial assistance
(to obtain useful information on other cases and common practices) would
have been minimized. We're talking about practices and people who were
using them a decade (or more) ago. At least it would have shown some degree of
cooperation.
If this is substantial assistance, then I'm afraid
to see what "lack of assistance" looks like. It's harmful enough to
dope and hide from the truth as long as possible, but I find it
difficult to blame athletes for this. Self-preservation is human nature. Armstrong went a step further.
He persecuted the people trying to prove his doping (if he was doping)
to the extent that he even received monetary damages. Lives of
principled people (if they were telling the truth) were ruined in his
wake.
So I say to you, if you allow a substantial
assistance reduction (or any other reduction) in this case, when would
you NOT allow a reduction?
P.S. What do Emma O'Reilly and Betsy Andreu think about this latest development?
I co-sign this.
ReplyDelete(If I may ;) )
Thanks a bunch, mrn10sdave!
I used to think usada were the good guys, going after Armstrong and all.... Check out Thomas hauser's article about usada's relationship with Golden Boy Promotions and possible positive tests from floyd mayweather which were covered up....
ReplyDeleteOne factor to consider is whether the information provided leads to a criminal conviction. If information provided by Mr. Armstrong leads to a criminal conviction of any of his suppliers or doctors, I think this would be well worth a reduction in suspension.
ReplyDeleteThe idea would be that doctors and other suppliers would be far less likely to supply PEDs to athletes if they knew that the athlete would turn on them for a reduced sentence if the athlete was caught.
I think this also answers the question: "if you allow a substantial assistance reduction (or any other reduction) in this case, when would you NOT allow a reduction?" Namely, in serious offenses which result in lifetime bans only substantial assistance that results in criminal convictions will result in a reduction. I think any time an athlete provides assistance that results in the criminal conviction of a doctor or supplier, this should be considered to the fullest extent allowable in reducing sentences. It is clear that drug testing is not enough. However, if law enforcement is involved, it would significantly deter additional doctors and suppliers from entering the field.
Again, the minimum sentence that Lance Armstrong can be reduced to is 8 years. Would you really take a lifetime ban over a 8 year suspension even if it meant seeing the likes of del Moral behind bars?
I just think there are other factors in this case, which make me cringe at the thought of a reduction in sentence. When you isolate the one sentence that you pulled out, it's relatively easy to disagree with me.
DeleteThink also about all the time that Armstrong's had to come forward already. Think about all the communication he's made publicly in the last 10-15 years. Everything is skewed to benefit him as much as possible. Think about how he's treated people. My instinct is that he would try to do as little as possible to get as much benefit as possible.
To answer whether I could theoretically see a reduction of sentence for an athlete in somewhat similar circumstances, the answer is "yes." I think the specific circumstances of this case so far make me extremely uneasy about allowing a reduction (or even being open to a reduction). I feel like Armstrong would start people down that path with the impression that he was going to come clean, and he would end up getting what he wanted without providing full disclosure.
It's also a classic Armstrong play in the sense that he had no interest in making these types of disclosure during the arbitration process, because he would have practically no power in the strict confines of a tribunal. Now he can go about it in such a manner that he has all the power and can control the flow of information anyway he likes. If they let him do this, we're all going to get wamboozled somehow.
Another angle to the NY Times report: the author is apparently penning a book on Armstrong and might want to create some buzz...So we need to be careful. According to some reports, Macur cites only a single anonymous source for her claims.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Juliet Macur does seem to have intimate access to Tygart as well.
@MTracy, it would indeed be nice to get at all those criminal doctors and suppliers, yet in the case of Armstrong it would be a classic case of casting pearls before swine if he would be let off the hook.
He is the quintessential posterboy of a corrupt sport and his constant lying even after proven wrong and embarrassing alpha-male bullying needs to have proper consequences instead of a rewarding with a reduced ban. Only a lifetime ban does set an example to other doping athletes. An option that should in fact be used much more often when penalizing athletes, I am thinking of Schleck and Contador among others.
I believe, following Armstrongs epic downfall in all its details and consequences has a much stronger impact than catching Ferrari and del Moral - which, correct me if I am wrong, have been caught anyway via all the given testimonies from the "reasoned decision." WHom do they suspect to catch? His Chinese EPO manufacturer?
The only advantage in having Armstrong come clean is getting at Verbruggen and McQuaid and have their chummy little federation implode. But I am not sure they need Armstrongs help for that. They are on auto-implode mode anyway and headed for doom. CCN is doing that job and I am sure if the US Justice Department is joining that whistle-blower lawsuit (Landis) they are fried anyway.
Reducing Armstrongs ban would send the wrong signals. It would mean to yet again succumb to HIS scheme, yet again catering towards HIS narcissistic ego by putting HIS teary-eyed repenting sinner act in the spotlight which he does not deserve. I don't want to grant him that "act". Too late, too inscensere and staged.
A government should by no means grant him that assurance of not getting prosecuted for perjury for that miserable fake act. AND have him compete in whatever sport ever again.
In a cruel twist of irony it is his very own foundation, once created to supply him with an additional (pr) shield from swirling accusations of doping turining him into teflon, that is pressuring Cancer Jesus to confess, if the NYT piece is to be believed.
I see where you are coming from -- all the evidence is already out and it wouldn't likely change anything. Unfortunately, you are probably right in that any criminal conviction is simply not going to happen. In that case, I would not support a lifting of the ban. I was simply saying that IF Lance Armstrong did posses information that led to criminal convictions, then I would support a reduction.
DeleteIn terms of this "alpha-male bullying," he was doped up on testosterone -- what would you expect?
In any case, I'll pass along the following interesting article on EPO use: http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/The-Power-of-EPO-Debunking-the-Flawed-British-Journal-Study.html
Essentially, a group of students and doctors published as article in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology stating that there is no evidence that EPO increases endurance in cyclist. This is essentially a Lance Armstrong apologist piece from an academic journal attempting to say, "Who cares if he doped, it doesn't help anyway."
In any case, the Outside Magazine does a pretty good job of saying what is wrong with the article. However, article does have some useful information on the legal use of EPO (hypoxic training) and what amounts of hypoxic exposure produce certain amounts of EPO. This could lead to some good discussion on whether tennis players can produce enough EPO through extreme hypoxic training to mimic EPO doping by injection, but I'll save that for another time as it is too far off topic for this thread.
Thanks MTracy - I think we are pretty much on the same page here. The only intelligence I expect from Armstrong might be regarding the assistance of the UCI in covering up his positive samples. The supply of his illegal substances prolly came via his a-moral doctors.
DeleteYes, the roid-rageing, I was aware of that - I mean, how can one not?
You wonder if he'd be a whole other person once he is off his testosterone and whatnot he is using. He prolly should detox to clear his blurred mind from all the chemicals and roids. Maybe then he'll be ready to confess and come clean alltogether?
Thanks for the EPO link, luckily, German news reported about that as well. Pretty telling how the outcome of a study is determined by who is financing it... Back in the nineties, there were studies in Germany as well claiming that steroids are not to be considered doping... Oh well.
Speaking of EPO, there is currently a case of a German amateur mountainbiker in the news, who overdosed/died from an EPO shot (together with a whole cocktail of other illegal stuff) recently - he was found with a needle stuck in his vein.
This tells you a lot about how rampant EPO and doping is already in a non-pro sports. The sadest part though is that the police did not even bother to investigate where the stuff was coming from. They did not check his computer or cell. But worse, they did not notify a special task force to investigate doping related crimes which has recently been created.
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/radsportler-im-allgaeu-nach-epo-einnahme-tot-aufgefunden-a-873100.html
It seems like unless your name is Michael Jackson, a doctor will never be investigated for killing his patients with illegal and dangerous substances.
DeleteIf he does admit it, I'm guessing that it will be a very half-assed - "I may have had something in my coca-cola", type of "confession." Then they will say that he provided "substantial assistance," but this will need to remain "confidential."
ReplyDeleteArmstrong has testified in a deposition under oath that he never took PED's of any kind. This was when he was sued by an insurance company that had to pay him millions for either winning the TDF or for winning it multiple times - I can't remember which. It was documented in the film that was linked on this site a few months back. It was televised in Australia, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think it was ever televised here in the US.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, unless the statute of limitations on perjury expires I can't for the life of me see Armstrong admitting to anything. Proving in a court of law that he knowingly took PED's and subsequently knowingly lied about it would be tough to do at this point. USADA didn't need to meet that burden of proof. However, if he actually admits he took PED's (again, knowingly) he'd really be setting himself up for a perjury charge.
Remember that Bonds stated in his testimony that he"didn't know" he took the clear and Clemens under oath in front of Congress denied ever using HGH, and evidently only admitted using HGH to Andy Pettitte, who subsequently "misremembered" the conversation and flopped on the witness stand. If either Clemens or Bonds had a public admission to their use of those drugs they'd probably both be in jail right now, or at least out of jail with a perjury conviction on their records. That's the last thing that Armstrong wants at this point.
I just don't see any way that Armstrong admits to anything yet. UNLESS he intends to make a deal with prosecutors to give up a ton of information in exchange for an agreement not to prosecute for perjury. To me that seems a little unlikely simply because it seems as though USADA and federal prosecutors already know everything he did, for the most part. Armstrong is a vindictive SOB though so he may want to bring down as many people as he can. Who knows.
I think the statue of limitations in Texas is 3 years max. I think the deposition was taken in Texas, but I could be wrong. Other States would have different statutes. Perjury is also rarely prosecuted.
ReplyDeleteAlso, looking at the transcript, it is not clear where the perjury would be. There is a question about whether Armstrong discussed PEDs in the hospital. (22:23-23:4). There is his statement on 32:12-14 where he says, "How could it have taken place when I've never taken performance-enhancing drugs." The problem is that this sentence is non-responsive to the question, therefore likely inadmissible. In addition, it is not a statement, it is a question. Same thing with the statement "Well, if it can't be any clearer than I've never taken drugs, then incidents like that could never have happened." Again, non-responsive to any question, this is just Mr. Armstrong having a dialog that happened to be recorded in the transcript. It is also not a statement saying he never took drugs just about how clear his answers are.
There is "Q: You have never taken any performance-enhancing drug in connection with your cycling career. A: Correct." Well, of course didn't take the drugs "in connection" with his cycling because that is banned. He took the drugs on his own time and for his own purposes.
The bottom line is that the questioning attorney did a very poor job, and you can even see where he is being bullied by Armstrong. (See p.33-34). The attorney should have asked specific questions like, "Do you know what EPO is?" What is your understanding of what EPO is?" Do you know how EPO is administered?" "Have you ever been administered EPO after 1997?" And do this for each drug at issue. Phrases like "in connection with your cycling career" are meaningless and a waste of time. Either it related to cancer, which was in 1996 or it didn't -- no reason to give Armstrong any wiggle room at all. Poor questioning, evasive answering -- even if the statute had not run, it would be a tough argument for perjury.
In any case, I was right about Oprah: http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/01/08/lance-armstrong-will-ask-oprah-for-absolution-forgiveness-in-interview "Lance Armstrong Will Ask Oprah for Absolution, Forgiveness in Interview." Will be broadcast Jan 17.
We will have see what he actually says. I am sure it will somehow relate to his ego and how he is really a champion and is being unfairly treated because everyone else was doping.
The deposition was in Texas on November 30, 2005. Texas has a 3 year limitations on "Aggravated Perjury" and a 2 year limitation on "Perjury." It would appear that any prosecution is long barred on this issue.
Delete