All this is pretty picky but for accuracy sake He was found guilty but he never pleaded guilty or pleaded at all. He knew what that would mean, but its not the same.

---

Styrrell

I understand your point, but failing to enter a plea, or in this case submit a request for a hearing is a de facto plead of guilty.

If you get a speeding ticket, you can pay the fine, or request a hearing and have X number of days to do it.

If you do not pay the fine, or request a hearing, guess what happens?

Lance was given a statement of charges and then asked to respond, either accept them, or challenge them via requesting a hearing. By not requesting a hearing, it is a de facto plead of guilty

You don't plead guilty or not guilty. You either accept the sanctions or you don't and then you go to Arbitration. This is not a court there is no conviction. there is no guilty or not guilty plea.

Sounds like semantics.

Because of the sanctions, he's not allowed to do "usat" sanctioned races.

Now what I find funny about all of this, is Rev3 essentially did this for an economic reason, but I'm guess if someone asked for their money back because it's not an usat sanctioned race, they would get rejected.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

In Lances case he picked secret option three. Just ignore it. Really it turned out to be brilliant. He ignored the USADA got banned then ignored the ban and is racing. thats why the traffic ticket analogy doesn't work. You ignore it, get fined get points , pay more for insurance etc. You can try to just ignore it but sooner or later it catches up to you. LA is the Teflon Juan.

---

Styrrell

They didn't do it for all their races they did it for this one. From what I understand 100% of the money goes to charity.

Except he's not being allowed the races he really wants to race. So in cycling terms it would be like getting to race Tour Down Under in cycling or some of the mid week races in the spring and having to sit on the sidelines for the big boy races.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Yes and no.

This is more like losing your license for not addressing the ticket, and then having a friend with private property let you tool around in their car on the property.

The real loser here are the races who may have been seeking a late season ranked race.

Now what would be interesting, is if the USAT/WADA/USADA saw this as a real slight against them i.e. taking a USAT race and dropping it so a banned racer could race, and decided to pull all future certifications to Rev3 races.

Don't think that will happen, but could be incredibly costly to Rev 3 should USAT decide that this was basically thumbing their nose at them and then decided that future Rev 3 races would not be USAT races.

no he's racing a special cancer survivor group.

He hasnt raced since june, but he's fought most of that time to be able to race. Whats wrong with me being vehemently against that for what it means to our sport, and sports in general for that matter. I havent started a thread on him in months, i participate where i feel interested, and there's a lot of misinformation out there, so I counter it. Don't like it? too bad.

I don't think its as bad as that. Rev 3 and Lifetime both are allowing him in. It remains to be seen if these are one offs or if they throw open the gates. Frankly i think he would get a lot of satisfation out of doing a 5 km with 20 people in it, just to let USADA know that he is still racing despite the ban.

---

Styrrell

I do when the one race he/we (the tri community "we") want him to do, he cant do. ETA: You may be right, but the thing that is probaly eating him alive is not being able to race the big races that he so desperately wants to. So in the end, Lance is smiling at USADA, while USADA is holding Kona essentially over his head as well, and saying "good luck getting into that race now". So for a guy as competitive as Lance, you know it's killing him not to be able to race the 1 tri race that really matters. Who did Lance partner up with the 1st of the year? It certainly wanst Rev3, so he could raise money for this Oct. race, it was WTC so he could race Kona and raise money for his foundation.

It's like in cycling he'd be allowed to race the Dauphine in June and then has to sit on the sidelines for the Tour. That's Lance's tri career at this point.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

To be really semantically correct; Rev3 didnt do it. The race director who works for UCF did it, and Rev3 is advertising it and doing the actual work race day. Its not all that surprising in the end. UCF was founded by Ulman who now runs Livestrong for Lance. Disappointing for the integrity of the sport and the race that day but at least lance isnt getting an appearance fee. If he were, I definitely would have pulled out of the race and asked for our donations to be returned so I could give them to a different cancer charity.

You've got serious Lance issues. You'd not race an event because he was there? -Ridiculous. I don't care if Landis or Hamilton or Lance shows up to a race. It would make things fun, if only for the notoriety.

I still think you're Travis Tygart smurfing....

Lawsuits have been filed for less. Contractual breach comes to mind. But I am not a lawyer.

But I digress.
I think Rev3 is getting too greedy.
Maybe they count on the short memory and deep pockets of participants and think they have a foot in the door to big Triathlon business?
Pure speculation on my part.

I personally wouldn't care if Lance raced in his own wave or if Rev3 would schedule a race just for his charity.

But that race owners change the rules for him does not sit well with me.
And all the charity talk, intended to sanitize what he as a person stands for, neither.
I'd feel steamrolled.

The expression you are looking for in the law is "nolo contendere." There is a reasonable summary of it here.

As a former criminal defense attorney, I can tell you there is often a big difference between pleading guilty and no contest. For our purposes, the key similarity is that in both instances the defendant ends up convicted of the charge. In an odd little coincidence, Maryland made the expression "nolo contendere" famous 40 years back when the sitting vice-president of the United States entered such a plea to tax evasion, as part of a plea bargain where he resigned the office in disgrace.

I think Josh Levine of Slate put it best: while earning a lifetime ban from USADA-signatory events, this plea of LA allows him to retain the one thing he obviously prizes the most: his righteous indignation.

Just to put it out there, from the Rev3 Facebook account:



So I don't think they're being greedy, unless you count trying to raise as much cash for UCF as possible as being greedy.
--------------------------------
Take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt, as I'm a member of Team Rev3, and I'll defend the series to death:


1.) Keep in mind that Rev3 is NOT dropping USAT as a signatory for the entire series. That's a one-time UCF thing. And yes, you can be cynical and say their playing the "cancer" card. But for the purpose of raising funds for cancer? Yeah, it works. I've personally benefited from the work of LiveStrong, too, as they helped me family tremendously when my father-in-law was battling cancer.


It's worked so far, too, from a participatory standpoint: The Half-Full Twitter account mentioned a large wave of new registrations when it was announced that Lance would be there.


2.) I disagree with Richie, Paulo, et al who think that just having him make an appearance would have the same impact as him participating in the event. (You'll notice I'm using the term 'event' rather than race, and I'll get to the reason for that distinction in a moment.) I think part of the draw is him being there on the course, not just making a speech and handing out medals.


3.) I think there's a difference between participatory events and races. Think, for instance, of your local triathlon benefitting x charity versus your typical M-Dot or Rev3 event. Think about who is involved in those events most of the time! They are less about the actual athletic component and more about what the benefit is.


This is where, IMO, I'm able to draw the distinction. I don't think Lance should be racing in a typical AG or professional capacity due to the USADA sanction. I'd be pissed, for example, if Lance were going to be allowed to race in a professional capacity at Rev3 events, or if Rev3 were to drop USAT permanently. But I don't think he should also be prohibited from inclusion in a benefit event.

Strange line to draw? Probably. But that's just how I see it.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

USADA code is essentially the same as WADA. The concept of pleading no contest is far from universal. The comparison of guilt in absentia because he chose not to dispute the allegations is a valid one IMO.

---

___________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/...eoesophageal_fistula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_palsy
2020 National Masters Champion - M40-44 - 400m IM
Canadian Record Holder 35-39M & 40-44M - 200 m Butterfly (LCM)

+1

I'm with you. I don't care who shows up. Actually I'd love to meet Lance, Floyd and the rest. If I knew Lance was doing IMpodunk or West Jabbok 70.3, races I'm normally only vaguely interested in, I'd be more likely to sign up because I know there'd be a lot more interest and excitement before and during those races. To me, this is another reason to love REV3.

Its my last race of the season, it affects my USAT standings, I have a young wife I wanted to make sure the race was insured. Plenty of reasons to make that call. I dont believe in racing with cheaters. You might think its fun, but then think about overcrowded transitions, media and having to get up extra early for the race. People think "ooh lance is racing, great!" other than its likely to help the charity, there are no positives to this for the sport or me.

EDIT: And to make it official, I am NOT Travis Tygart or anyone who works for USADA or in any way associated with them. I hope no one from that group would waste their time here other than to perhaps gather input towards future rules changes.

Thank you for coming here to give Rev3's perspective. Here's mine (ours):

My wife is signed up for this race (note, race) and one of the main reasons she did so was to boost her USAT ranking as she has not raced much this season. This would have been her third USAT ranking race, thus qualifying her for an official ranking. Now she won't get an official USAT ranking unless she switches races. So a question for you: if she requests a refund so she can race Poconos 70.3 instead, will you grant her one?

Beyond the USAT ranking issue above, we both feel disappointed that Rev3 has allowed a sanctioned doper with a lifetime ban from the sport by official bodies to race at one of their events. We will not be participating in Rev3 races in the future.

Why stop there? Shouldn't you be protesting ST as well because they allow Honey Stinger to advertise here?

Kay--

I am a part of Team Rev3, I am not a Rev3 staff member. Also note that I am not the voice of Rev3 here; the opinions that I provided are my own alone.

Contact Rev3 directly about it, and contact them with exactly how you feel. It's something CP and the crew takes to heart with their decision-making.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter