Armstrong Cleared of doping in 99 TdF

[creekster]

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_ylt=Ao_ebJmT1dTTZ7q_dtnryU5.grcF?slug=ap-armstrong-doping&prov=ap&type=lgns

in general, more info can be found here (this is the hiom e page, so the lead stories will change over time)

http://www.velonews.com/

Not everyone agrees with the conlcusions, but LA comes out looking pretty good for now.

Btw, Dick Pound deserves his name. WHat a jerk.

[Cali Coug]

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news;_ylt=Ao_ebJmT1dTTZ7q_dtnryU5.grcF?slug=ap-armstrong-doping&prov=ap&type=lgns

in general, more info can be found here (this is the hiom e page, so the lead stories will change over time)

http://www.velonews.com/

Not everyone agrees with the conlcusions, but LA comes out looking pretty good for now.

Btw, Dick Pound deserves his name. WHat a jerk.

I have to say, I don't get this investigation. I don't really understand how the governing bodies of cycling work, but why would they appoint a lawyer to determine if a lab properly handled his blood samples? Shouldn't they appoint a scientist or several scientists?

Also a bit mystifying that he would say Armstrong is completely exhonerated when, I presume, he has no basis for determining if an agent is present in blood or not. Further odd that they appointed a person who has a track record of defending athletes from doping scandals and attacking the doping agency.

All very odd. Why did they appoint him? I love what Armstrong has done in cycling, so why not have an investigation that appears more facially legitimate and put these rumors to rest, one way or the other!

[creekster]

I have to say, I don't get this investigation. I don't really understand how the governing bodies of cycling work, but why would they appoint a lawyer to determine if a lab properly handled his blood samples? Shouldn't they appoint a scientist or several scientists?

Also a bit mystifying that he would say Armstrong is completely exhonerated when, I presume, he has no basis for determining if an agent is present in blood or not. Further odd that they appointed a person who has a track record of defending athletes from doping scandals and attacking the doping agency.

All very odd. Why did they appoint him? I love what Armstrong has done in cycling, so why not have an investigation that appears more facially legitimate and put these rumors to rest, one way or the other!

I thought you might like this investigation as it was not geographically limited.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I don't find this so odd. The dutch guy is sort of like Archibald Cox or any other ind. invesigator. His reputation was excellent and he had actually worked both sides of the doping issue before. Moreover, you may have missed the refernce in the articel to the fact that he had retained Duthc scientists to assist him with the doping analysis. My guess is that you have hired experts to work on your cases before, so I am sure you are comfortable with the notion of one person leading an invesitgation who then hires experts to assist with particualr areas of expertise.

The governing bodies of cycling are a mess. They are ridden with suqabbling and in-fighting and territory grabbing. They resemble children more often than they do adults, and are more concerned about asserting their authority than enahincg the sport's image. UCI, who claims to govern this issue, is a perfect example. They retain the invesitgator who they then condemn becasue he finds they acted improperly. Indeed, it appears that LA was correct when he asserted last year that UCI violated the law by leaking his personal test information to L'Equipe in the first place. SO UCI leaks the info, then claims to be SHOCKED that the samples were made available to L'Equipe, then claims it must investigate becasue LA may have doped, then hires a guy they assume will back them, then whines that thier invesitgator didn't let them see the full report before talkling to the press. Note that the report does not conclude that UCI or WADA or anyone else violated the law, in fact, it urges a further investigation into that matter. Instead, this report is only into the handling of LA's sampoles. While no one has seen the report, it apprently will fully exonerate LA.

Apart from hiring a lawyer that had worked for both athletes and testing groups in the past and letting him run an independednt invesitgation usiung experts that he retains separately, how would you, exactly, try to put the rumors to rest once and for all?

[creekster]

Having now looked at a few more articels I more convinced than ever that the UCI and WADA are screwed up. This is not to say that doping isn't happening, but the situtaion looks like we have the keystone cops called to try and stop drug use.

WADA and UCI whine about a lack of courtesy and professionalism becasue vrjiman (sp?) described his report to the press before giving the UCI and WADA a full chance to review it and spin it. That is both laughable and contemptible. WADA blames UCI for leaking the information allowing L'Equipe to connect LA's name witht he samples in question and UCI claims Dick Pound of WADA improperly revealed infromation about the testing procedures of LA. Neither of them was concerened about LA or showing him courtesy or professionalism. These guys are completes jokes. Dick Pound is out to get cyclists in general and LA in particualr. He seems to believe that the whole sport is dirty. Maybe he is right, but given his public statements and behavior the last few years he has lost all credibility. UCI is also a joke and, if cohesive, is an evil organziation (apparently seeking to destroy LA's reputation) or, if not ochesive, is so disorgnizaed and disjointed as to have no credibiloty on any issue, including doping.

I love cycling as a sport and as an activity but it is a real mess right now. I hope Basso can contionue to do well and continue to test clean. The sport could really use a stretch of non-controversial results. I am afraid, however, that the recent Spanish scandal will escalate and result in more image problems for the sport.

[Cali Coug]

I thought you might like this investigation as it was not geographically limited.

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

I don't find this so odd. The dutch guy is sort of like Archibald Cox or any other ind. invesigator. His reputation was excellent and he had actually worked both sides of the doping issue before. Moreover, you may have missed the refernce in the articel to the fact that he had retained Duthc scientists to assist him with the doping analysis. My guess is that you have hired experts to work on your cases before, so I am sure you are comfortable with the notion of one person leading an invesitgation who then hires experts to assist with particualr areas of expertise.

The governing bodies of cycling are a mess. They are ridden with suqabbling and in-fighting and territory grabbing. They resemble children more often than they do adults, and are more concerned about asserting their authority than enahincg the sport's image. UCI, who claims to govern this issue, is a perfect example. They retain the invesitgator who they then condemn becasue he finds they acted improperly. Indeed, it appears that LA was correct when he asserted last year that UCI violated the law by leaking his personal test information to L'Equipe in the first place. SO UCI leaks the info, then claims to be SHOCKED that the samples were made available to L'Equipe, then claims it must investigate becasue LA may have doped, then hires a guy they assume will back them, then whines that thier invesitgator didn't let them see the full report before talkling to the press. Note that the report does not conclude that UCI or WADA or anyone else violated the law, in fact, it urges a further investigation into that matter. Instead, this report is only into the handling of LA's sampoles. While no one has seen the report, it apprently will fully exonerate LA.

Apart from hiring a lawyer that had worked for both athletes and testing groups in the past and letting him run an independednt invesitgation usiung experts that he retains separately, how would you, exactly, try to put the rumors to rest once and for all?


Let me reiterate again that I have no real knowledge about how cycling is governed or how all of this is working. My knowledge is limited to information I got out of one article (and I am sure you would agree that the media will fairly and accurately report all sides of any story :)). The article I read didn't indicate that he had sought out assistance from scientists. Rather, it indicated that he was well-known for representing doped up athletes in the past.

I don't have a problem with an attorney conducting the information, per se. After all, is there a profession with more integrity and less corruption than the legal profession?

:)

[creekster]

Let me reiterate again that I have no real knowledge about how cycling is governed or how all of this is working. My knowledge is limited to information I got out of one article (and I am sure you would agree that the media will fairly and accurately report all sides of any story :)). The article I read didn't indicate that he had sought out assistance from scientists. Rather, it indicated that he was well-known for representing doped up athletes in the past.

I don't have a problem with an attorney conducting the information, per se. After all, is there a profession with more integrity and less corruption than the legal profession?

:)

Vrijman most recently represented Dutch atheletes but previously spent 10 years as the head of the Duthc anti-doping agency. Besides, he was appoonted by UCI, not LA and not WADA, so it is a little hard, I would think for them to complain about him or his methodology. The article under the first link in my first post mentions that Vrijman retained a dutch scientist to help with the testing science issues.

[Cali Coug]

Vrijman most recently represented Dutch atheletes but previously spent 10 years as the head of the Duthc anti-doping agency. Besides, he was appoonted by UCI, not LA and not WADA, so it is a little hard, I would think for them to complain about him or his methodology. The article under the first link in my first post mentions that Vrijman retained a dutch scientist to help with the testing science issues.

Very odd indeed. How often do you hear someone complain about the person conducting the investigation when they appointed the person? I had missed that when I read through the alphabet soup of agency names.

[Parrot Head]

Btw, Dick Pound deserves his name.

Was creek involved in some weird porno that involved scales?