Your Honor, I object. Any testimony offered by USADA on behalf of Landis, Andreu, or Hamilton is inherently untrustworthy therefore no exception to the Rule Against Hearsay may apply.

For example, the co-conspirator's exception should not apply because at least Landis and Hamilton have lied publicly and on multiple occasions.

Well Counselor, under Rule 104(a) it's my call. That means that under these facts that I must look at Rule 104(b) which requires me to determine by the preponderance of the evidence whether a reasonable jury could find that sufficient evidence exists so that the proffered testimony might be probative.

The interesting question on this front is what - if any - is the ACTUAL cost of this sort of investigation in terms of a marginal perspective. In other words, where is the money really coming from? Is it actually costing someone more money to pursue this? Or is it coming out of already allotted money/time/etc?

In the case of the US Attorney's office investigating Lance, I can see the issues there, because there are certainly - in my opinion - fraud/conspiracy cases that should have been - and should be - investigated first (Countrywide, for example). So it seemed relatively clear that the Clemens/Bonds/Armstrong investigations were a potential misuse of funds/time/effort with regards to the public interest.

BUT, in the case of USADA, I'm not sure you can draw the same conclusion. Where does USADA's money come from? And how is it allotted? I.e., if they didn't spend the money on this, what would they be spending it on? It's easy to say, "the economy is shitty, and people are out of work, so that USADA money should be spent on X instead." Do you REALLY know it's "big time money?" I would say that you probably don't. And if the money is already allotted to USADA - from whatever source - I'm guessing it's just sitting there. It's not like they can redirect it back if they don't use it. It's part of their budget. That's speculation though. But it's a bit like having a lawyer on retainer. You've already paid, so you might as well use it. Now - to be sure - I do not know if that is the exact case. But I believe it to be as reasonable a possibility as what you've advanced.

So, to extrapolate that these are wasted dollars is - I think - a bit unreasonable. Not because of any "greater good" or whatever argument, but because I don't think you - or I - actually have any real insight into the particulars of USADA's financials.

As an additional aside, I also personally object to the general line of reasoning that you advance. It reminds me a bit of the folks who say they we should drill in ANWR because oil is too expensive. Or that we should open National Parks to private enterprise because they aren't making enough money. I think that, ultimately, the mission of USADA is an important one and a noble one. I don't think it's necessarily one that needs to demonstrate any sort of "ROI." Part of it is the impossibility of proving any effect. How do you prove that less people dope? You can't.

There is a huge difference between JP Morgan's trading losses and USADA "losing" money chasing people who may have doped. I would find it rather depressing if you didn't see that.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Darn it, there's no fun at all in prosecuting someone who doesn't care and won't put up a fight. Where will the media drama come from? What will we bitch about on Slowtwitch?

While the focus on these sorts of organizations is punishing the doped athlete, I think it's important to remember the purpose is to try to make it possible for the clean athlete to compete without resorting to doping. If USADA has the evidence Armstrong doped, it would be a dereliction of their duty to not suspend him and negate his results (regardless if it will just elevate other dopers up the results). I don't know the elite triathlon scene (i.e. maybe doping is common there too?) but would it be fair to them to compete against a guy who is a demonstrated doper? Who's to say he isn't still doing it since he's always gotten away with it before, etc.?

Who is to say that there aren't a HUGE number of people 'enhancing' through a means that is not easily detectable? This is a silly question because if you can't prove it, then where is it? (insert religion thread here) go!

---

< Quitting Isn't An Option >

Well, that would be where the amphetamines come into place. EPO and steroids are longer term usage with cycles. Amphetamines are quick reacting. From what I have read, cyclists would either have a syringe in their feed bag or they would inject just under the skin forming a blister before the race. When they needed the extra "push", they would press on the blister releasing the drugs into their body.

Hate to break it to you, but that is no how the physiology of our body works. If the blister is so superficial that it is just there but not deep enough to be absorbed into the body then simply 'pressing' as you mention will not magically make it go into the body. In fact, it would more likely burst to the outside. My medical experience .02.

---

< Quitting Isn't An Option >

The funny thing is that he rode Bernhard Kohl right off his wheel. And Bernhard Kohl was shortly thereafter busted for EPO use during that same tour. So, Floyd was so strong that he simply rode tempo away from a doped guy. That Jack Daniels is strong stuff. Made for good watching, though.

Sure, as long as this is strictly a USADA event. There is potential for increased investigations and litagation which could potentially cost more money.

As far as budgets go, the sad part of most budgets is they are allotted in advance and if not completely used up by the end of the fiscal period, then the next allotted budget will be less. This in turn forces departments to spend every penny of their budget so they can get the same amount or more next time around. Some times those budgets are waste JUST so they can make sure they can get the same again next time.

I'm not implying the USADA is doing this. Just playing devils advocate.

I would be more impressed with the USADA announcing more controls for age groupers in sports where there are prizes or qualifications at stake. Pro's are already in the spot light, let's get the microscopes out on the age groupers now. Besides, are the kids today learning to dope from pro's or from mom and dad?

Quote:

I think he just doesnt give a rats ass anymore. I mean really...he's been fighting this crap for how long? IMO..he doped and so did everyone else he raced against (take a look at everyone who has stood on a podium with him and if they got busted). I dont really care if he did or didnt, I think he is an amazing cyclist, but I can see from his perspective, his cycling career is over now and everyone can basically kiss his ass.

The reality of doping in cycling has certainly shattered my dreams of what I wanted to believe cycling was. Having said that, you can strip Lance of all 7 titles and pass them on to someone else who was doping instead. What have you really accomplished?

They should treat cycling like Hockey. You can do whatever you want, and if you get caught, here's the penalty. Just admit that everyone dopes, let them all dope, and then have them submit to scheduled drug tests and state that if you fail the test, here's your penalty.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

LTBlowUp wrote:

Man our government sure loves to piss away money on stupid shit. In the big picture, wtf does it matter if he did or didn't. Pretty sure we have bigger fish to fry - poverty, education, safety, healthcare etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc x1000 then maybe if someone doped. give me a frikkin break!

USADA is not "Our Government" They are part of WADA, the regulatory body for doping in sport. Their job is to pursue cheating in sport, not poverty or education.

If USADA decides to sanction Lance then his career in Triathlon is done for at least two years.

I think that, ultimately, the mission of USADA is an important one and a noble one

to this we 100% agree. Even here in Ontario there have been a few riders popped over the years and last year at our nationals we popped a few Quebec riders. Bloody fantastic I say. Caught, get lost, never come back.

if they didn't spend the money on this, what would they be spending it on?

re: here is where we have debate, and healthy debate I would submit. I argue, stop chasing the dragon of years gone by 1999-2006. USADA funds are not a bottomless pit, they have to be finite by definition...there is only so much $$ after all. My argument, though maybe I didn't clearly state it, is use their powers and moneys against current state. For example, what WADA did with CERA to then rid the peloton of Shumacher, Ricco and co. was bloody fantastic!!! Take the USADA $$, partner with pharma for anti-drug tests, don't say shit about it, and pop the assholes who are cheating now. My view is, there is just so much to focus on today that going back 13 years is a waste of $$ both in human capacity (which is not limitless) and in dollar allocation (which is not limitless).

here is a huge difference between JP Morgan's trading losses and USADA "losing" money chasing people who may have doped. I would find it rather depressing if you didn't see that

I think we actually agree because of your reference to Countrywide. I think our disagreement stems from my not being very clear in my connection of federal investigation money vs. USADA spend of money.

What I was inferring what that there was a federal investigation that went around the world, literally, to chase where a few million dollars went. I was not trying to connect USADA with JP, I was trying to connect the federal investigation spend to the continual lack of spend on Wall Street corruption and the prioritization of the USA's investigations. I work in finance so forgive me, but where I am completely and utterly depressed is that no one has taken a hit for the financial collapse (well Lehmans fell but I argue that's because of who was Treasurer then and his Schawb legacy....watch Inside Job, it is quite fascinating)....yest still somehow, or someway a shit load of federal investigation $$ was spent on a fraud case from 1999-2004 worth a few million...NOT BILLION, million. As you say, Countrywide is far more important that US Postal funds to a cyclist.

So I think we agree? Clearly in my WhoTFCares quick typing I wasn't clear in what dots I was connecting.

anyway...love your work, I believe we are aligned.

---

@rhyspencer

Please re-read what I wrote. "From what I've read". Paul Krimmage admitted to do this and witnessing this in his book "A Dog in a Hat". As I have never performed this act myself, I can only go by what I read.

I am not a doctor.

Direct witness testimony is not hearsay.

How about the testimony of George, Mike, Christian, Jonathan, Marty, and Levi? Does that also get ignored?

Good God, man. Please say it ain't so. Maybe if testing were as easy as a lie detector at the Finish Line. But, can you imagine the costs of trying to enforce anti-doping at the AG scale? Triathlons and USAT fees are plenty expensive already. Screw it, I say. If some jackass AGers want to dope up with some Mexican cocktail, have at it I say.

I believe in the Kimmage years the amphetamine injection approach was a tug on the bike shorts and a pill up the ass.

This makes me very sad....

You are assume USADA is only focused on his first career, they are not.



They are already doing this. They have been working with many large Pharma companies for years

Lance is currently racing as a Professional in a sport that is a WADA code signatory. Should they ignore his doping? Should WADA ignore the doping of all atheltes that sign the code as part of their license or just ignore Lance's doping?

YES!
let the gladiators fight. let those of us to smart be gladiators live well and healthy.

If I've learned nothing else from this whole Armstrong saga, it is that most people who use the words "hearsay" in reference to it, don't know what hearsay means :)

Hmmm, ya you're right. In regards to the book, although a good narrative there are probably elements of fiction (just like any well written book) thrown in to make the events a little more appealing and fun to read.

---

< Quitting Isn't An Option >

Interesting article, thanks.

I believe that had I endured the better part of 2 decades with life threatening illness (along with it's therapy), losing body parts, the press, ex team mates (not all honest), various agencies with agendas and the unshakeable logic of ST, I too might be tempted to say "f*ck it!". He may be an arsehole, he may be super talented (sometimes that goes together in my experience) he maybe as bent as a shillelagh, but like him I am exhausted by it all and no longer care. It's a bit of the "let he who is without sin........" conundrum to me.

For those with 5 minutes, the attached about sums it up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTdDN_MRe64