Originally Posted by jpr95 .
It goes back to the points that the Congressman from raised. He raises some very valid points:
1. USADA did not exist when Armstrong started cycling, so Armstrong could not have chosen to participate in that discipline under their rules.
2. You yourself said they're not a court of law, yet they want to take his property--money, trophies and yellow jerseys--without involving a court of law or the 4th or 10th Amendments.
3. They're not allowing Armstrong to challenge/face/know his accusers, many of whom may have some skin in the game and something to gain by testifying against Armstrong in USADA's kangaroo court.
4. They're ignoring the strongest exculpatory evidence--over 500 clean drug tests. Maybe you should drive a car 500 times with a police officer sitting in your passenger seat, citation pad in hand and see how you do.
Getting tough with ex post facto rules is a stupid way to rid sports of doping. Frequent, random testing with severe penalties for confirmed positive results would be more effective. Also, don't ban substances if there's no way to definitively test for them.
Not to mention, if Armstrong beat others because he was doping, it was quite likely because he was both better at cycling and at doping, but not because he doped and they didn't. Some of his wins were by enough that he probably could have beat the others even if they had doped and he hadn't (which may be a possibility--it hasn't yet been conclusively proven that he doped).
I'm not sure why you're implying that I'm a Republican--I never claimed to be. I merely stated my belief that McCain is a RINO.
point 1. sti shifters did not exist when i began cycling. things change. uci did not exist since the dawn of time, yet, in order to compete in certain events, one submits to their authority for that competition. so, point of fact, if armstrong desired to continue competing for certain titles, he accepted the authority of the organisation. he could very well have protested the usada's existence by removing himself from any competition they administered. also, if he holds a professional license from the u s cycling bodies, he also has accepted the usada's authority. if he is licensed through another nation, then, yes, usada is probably overstepping their authority. which does not excuse the fact that usps/discovery/radio shack-nissan were all covered under u s licenses. bottom line--armstrong accepted their authority in order to vie for those titles and one would expect to find his very own signature on documents which attest to his willingness to be subject to their authority.
point 2. fourth amendment concerns search and seizure by a government authority, which is generally held to be police and other investigatory bodies looking for evidence in criminal matters. as stated above, usada is not a criminal court. it is a sporting authority, somewhat like uci, pga, or whatever honourable body maintains the integrity on that most beautiful of sport, curling, in that they set the rules for clean competition. they also raised the issue that he would no longer be able to pursue his professional ambitions. simply put, there a quite a few lawyers who have lost licenses, yet manage to earn a living advising others on legal matters, just without being able to argue those points in court. armstrong will not lose his bicycle shop or his ability to offer his services in an advisory position. i think, should he really want to, he can become an amway salesman.
tenth amendment is the boiler plate amendment which was covered under the rubric of "state's rights." we fought a civil war over that issue and one or two more important ones, to boot. just because the constitution never specifically mentions the usada does not preclude its creation or authority. when that amendment was written, the united states (and every other country, if i remember my history correctly, did not have an air force. yet we have, by all accounts, quite a kick-ass one now.) and in reality, the usada will not be taking trophies, prize monies or honours from armstrong. quite likely the aso will be asking politely in a french court for those items. the usada is charged with determining whether armstrong competed fairly.
point 3. bottom line at the very top. your points (actually armstrong's lawyer's) are obfuscation. usada are empowered by their charter to hold these hearings, and therefore you are either unaware of the meaning of a kangaroo court or simply trying to muddy the waters with an unfair characterisation of that body. as for not knowing who will be cited as offering testimony to armstrong's alleged doping, were this a criminal court, your point would have merit. sadly there is no district attorney or other government agent prosecuting the case which would require them to offer up a witness list to armstrong. this is a panel of arbitrators, agreed to by the parties to offer judgement on these matters so that courts do not have to be involved. arbitration panels are employed quite often by opposing parties to gain a quick and speedy settlement to a conflict. both parties agree to abide by the panel's/arbitrator's decision. i think we can probably find armstrong's signature on some document which showed his acceptance of their authority. and, frankly, it ain't like he doesn't have a reputation for making numerous phone calls to individuals before they offer testimony in legal matters. you know, witness tampering?
point 4. red herring. 500 hundred clean tests? and this from a man who can never once be cited as having said, "i have never used p e d's, ever." what does he say? "i'm the most tested athlete ever." "i have never failed a doping control." vast gulf in meanings between those statements. and there is the late date t u e, the epo urine samples and the dodging the doping control officer while he pops off to have a shower incident. in point of fact, ***** voets "breaking the chain" gives a wonderful insight to how the doping regimes are gamed. michael ashenden, who helped create and administer the bio-passport, has said that the bio-passport can be gamed. so, we are to believe doping tests because they are impartial, but flawed, and ignore eye-witness testimony from
his teammates? bottom line--floyd landis passed every one of his **** tests right up til the failed one. only after further testing, because the threshold had been crossed on the lab machine, on those earlier samples did they find the very same testosterone. push comes to shove, i'll take the teammates testimony and see if the lab tests don't bolster their statements.
as for whether he's better at cycling and doping, i don't really care. doping is against the rules of competition. if he is found to have cheated, so be it.
as for your political party affiliation, i am more concerned with your discounting of mc cain's actions with an ad hominem attack. whether he is a good, bad or indifferent republican matters little if his position does not smack of grandstanding for one of your constituents.
