USADA Statement

Thanks for posting all these links Steve. I only read George Hincapie's affadavit, since he's the pro I've always liked and respected. Not surprising, but sad to read anyway. Also read the sanction letters to Hincapie and Dave Z. To me, it would have been more satisfying had Lance cooperated like the rest of his team and other witnesses, told the truth and accepted his sanctions like a man. If and when he steps up and does that, then I'll agree that "it's time to move on".

 

Thanks Steve for posting those links./img/vbsmilies/smilies/icon14.gif

 

[FONT= 'Lucida Grande']U.S. Justice Department official Mike Pugliese being present during the USADA witness testimony is really interesting.[/FONT]

[FONT= 'Lucida Grande']Pugliese was "on watching brief" to cross reference USADA witness testimony to witness testimony to the grand jury given earlier, as it was given.[/FONT]

 

Good point. I think this adds a lot to the credability of the testimony. Also doubt USADA could have gotten all this cooperation absent the prior federal investigation (and the threat of perjury).

It's just a shame that Lance is choosing not to come clean like the rest of his teammates. Wonder if he is so egotistical that he thinks people will continue to believe him, or is just unable to face up and admit his mistakes. Maybe in the next few days he'll realize he has no way ahead without telling the true, and that as horrible as the prospect is, he has to do it soon rather than continuing the lie that few believe anymore. I'm willing to bet he's not sleeping very well this days. Without an admission soon, he will quickly become a joke and fade into obscurity.

 

David Walsh in his only interview in the national media over here since the report was released spoke about USADA testimony and hearings.

Walsh said that one of the witnesses told him that Pugliese's presence at the USADA hearings made him think twice about trying to understate or play down the doping the went on at USPS/Discovery.

The witness said in his testimony to the grand jury he told the truth because he realised that seriousness of the interest from the DOJ/Feds in the matter.
He said he also wanted to clear his own conscience "having lived a lie" with regard to doping for the best part of a decade.
According to Walsh, before testifying at the USADA each witness was informed of the presence of Pugliese and other DOJ officials. Witnesses were also told that Pugliese and the officials had transcripts of each witness statement given to the grand jury, present at the USADA hearing. And that DOJ officials would be cross checking USADA statements with the grand jury statements to see if there were any "inconsistencies or discrepancies".
The witness said that he was concious of making sure that everything he said in statement to USADA corresponded exactly with what he said to the grand jury.

Walsh said he had been told that DOJ were still monitoring the case of the alleged abuse of taxpayer funds concerning possible sporting fraud at USPS.

 

You know that a lot of people are going to believe Armstrong. Just look at some of the responses at this forum, and this is just a small sampling.

 

So for people questioning the value and veracity of witness testimony to USADA, their previous testimony to the grand jury, the presence of the feds during the USADA interviews, and the threat of federal perjury charges hanging over their heads makes the idea of any of and certainly all of the witnesses lying a very remote possibility. The feds take lying seriously. Just ask Marion Jones.

 

admittedly, that portion of the report i've gone through is making for some interesting reading, particularly the money trail. but like lim points out, the bigger issue is the level of complicity uci exhibited in this era. i have to wonder in light of this report (dr. m. saugy's testimony especially) how uci could not begin a thorough investigation. certainly makes the vrijman report worthy of a new read. verbruggen and mc quaid will be getting a few questions, i imagine, which don't deal with the outcome of the tour of beijing.

 

I agree about the threat of perjury providing some motivation in all this. What is strking (and we may never know the full truth) is that all of these athletes claim to have stopped using doping methods at around the same time and have been "racing clean ever since." Somehow I don't believe that to be true. It is also interesting to see the lack of moral courage or ethical decision making among everyone involved. Everyone cites the system or need to compete as the motivator to give in to these questionable practices. I guess it reminds me that these are mostly uneducated and inmature athletes that are subject to the lures of power, money, and fame. Of course that is a draw for any of us, but interesting to look at from the athletes perspective.

 

I don't think education or maturity have anything to do with it.

 

Maybe that's right, but I guess my perspective is that the ethics and morals to resist what is ultimately wrong according to the rules won't exist in young, impressionable, ambitious athletes. I can easily envision these men justifying their actions based on the idea that everyone else is doing it.

 

I saw this opinion piece concerning Armstrong's decision not to fight the USADA case.

Some here may find it an interesting read.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/08/the-armstrong-fallout-thoughts-and.html

 

Citing a person's lack of education as an excuse for their moral weakness isn't a point that I agree with.

My view is that a person doesn't need to be educated to know this difference between doing the correct thing and doing the incorrect thing.

 

Ethics and morals aren't age related. At the age that pro cyclists start their pro careers, they know what is right and what is wrong, and it's pretty obvious that doping is wrong if it has to be kept so secret, if you have to hide from testing authorities and the public eye.

 

First off, thank you for the user who posted all the links to the original reasoned decision.

Second, the part that hit me the hardest was the rider testimony which referenced Jonathan Vaughters doping while on the Comptel-Colorado Cyclist team. I was a 19 year old amateur on that same team in Colorado. I remember racing with Jon-a-thin (as his teammates called him) in a handful of crits that year. I remember starting the races and absolutely burying my head and riding as fast as I possibly could in those crits. I tried my hardest, and made it into the lead group of 10, several now famous riders were around me including Vande Velde, Pate, Moninger, Wherry, Jim Copeland, etc, and all I can remember is the sight of Jon-a-thin, his arms so skinny, his sleeves were flapping in the wind, and he was killing us all, riding so fast on a flat road as to drop several flatlanders and sprinters, his speed, and power were so much that it not only dropped me that day, but crushed my spirit. I said "if I'm getting crushed like this in a local crit, how can I ever make it to the tour". And now I know how. I'm pissed, pissed at Jonathan for crushing my spirits, for killing my chance at a dream. Along with Lance and his legion of fellow dopers, you stole our careers, dreams, lively-hood, and more importantly our sport.

I never would have doped that day, or at anytime during my career, it would have been much like Scott Mercier, who was faced with the decision, and chose the high road, which at the time amounted to a career in finance. I have been holding on to this suspicion of Jon-a-thin doping for 15 years, I always suspected, and now I finally have proof, thankfully.

I think the UCI needs to be taken down, they are an evil organization who were complicit in dashing my career and countless other careers. Cycling needs to focus on the guys who are still doping, yes you Contador, nobody gets dropped then makes up 4 minutes the next day without doping, and Purito. The UCI and USADA talks nothing of today's cheats, and only wastes taxpayer money working on 13 year old mysteries.

Hopefully things turnaround, and nobody is faced with the crushing defeat of a local doper in a criterium.

 

I can see your point, and maybe I am not communicating my belief as clearly as I would like, but I think that it is easy to justify breaking the rules when you are surrounded by a culture of acceptability.

I do not believe that it is realistic to assign a simple black and white argument or right or wrong judgement and then act within a set of ethcis with young, impressionable, and aspiring athletes.

As far as I know there are not discussions of ethics or the importance of moral choices within the "professional" cycling community that would give these guys a better frame of reference (this is the education I am talking about). I believe that the cyclists that used PED's absolutley knew it was against the rules, but I don't think they viewed it as a decision that would carry the consequences that we have now seen.

 

right. well not much hope that armstrong will ever come and give a truthful accounting of his actions, but, still....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/19/travis-tygart-us-anti-doping-lance-armstrong