that fatty has nothing better to do (besides eat and bitch about obama - every single week)

ETA: It also looks like he's decided the fed gov. opinion for mr. sparks.

i think this is the right thing to do








as long as the of the total time he gets for his investigation is 74 seconds or 3ppm of one single year, which is the ratio of $9million out of a total expenditure of $3.8 trillion

and even then it may be too generous as he doesn't work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year

Cue the JRenfro duplicate post touting how this obviously clears Lance, and that USADA is about to have a can of Whoop-ass opened on 'em... in 3...2...1...

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Does this mean Lance can race Kona now?

Honestly I think his request is reasonable, but I think the added rhetoric that is pretty biased is not needed.

Then again Jim is big on rhetoric and calling out problems, and little about offering solutions.


I ink I should head to the lr

Uh ohhhh.. USADA f'uked themselves up the as$. They might lose all their funding now for pursuing a personal venddenta against LA. Way to go USADA... now they will have to back off or lose their funding.. if they back off, they show will lose all creditability as well. Bad decisions by their CEO.

This is interesting, not just a no name Congressman, Wisconsins most tenured, introduced the Patriot Act.
Quick google search seems he has no ties to Lance....and from the looks of him he's not a bike rider either. Wonder why he decided to send this letter, genuine interest in wasted tax money? Seems they have to acknowledge this.

Here's the most important fact to know about this: Trek HQ is located in his district.

Also, I fully expect the Drug Control Policy org to come out in support of USADA.

Cancer survivor, but more importantly, Trek HQ is in his district. That's the biggest tie to Lance you can have.

Bingo!

"Here's the most important fact to know about this: Trek HQ is located in his district"

whether you love or hate lance (where is it you stand on lance? i forgot), this was inevitable. in fact - rimshot - i called this one yesterday.

not because of trek or nike or any of his sponsors. because lance is extremely well connected politically. not because of bikes or bike races, but because of legislation that revolves around things cancer. for example, anti-smoking legislation. both lance and the foundation. advocacy is a big part of the push. he knows a LOT of politicians, and sensenbrenner is just the first of what i expect will be a number of these guys, both in the house and in the senate.

just sayin', even if you think he's the devil, this is a tactical reality that usada either did, or should have, anticipated. this is what imperils usada in its vulnerability. this is even more of a potential problem than how a federal judge might rule.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't disagree that he's a big target with lots of connections. All the more reason we as people should be looking to limit this type of influence from affecting the process. We would all bitch and moan if it was some movie star using their influence to affect their processes (ok, we all is a generality, but I know I would and a lot of others) whether civil or criminal. Remember the AAA process is used every day in civil and employment matters all over the country without this kind of hubbub.

And as to where I stand, Im far more about the process than I am about lance. As someone who has spoken out about the process, you must see some serious ills in our anti-doping programs that i dont see, because Im for us actually letting the process work and seeing Lance fight the charges with evidence, rather than fight the process. I was never convinced one way the other about Lance, and was even more in doubt when he said what he said in Men's Journal. But now that he's fighting the process instead of the facts, with evidence of his own, it's hard to see this for anything other than obfuscating the dirty truth with distractions against a process he agreed to be bound by.

You think that makes him biased? What about Tygart's bias against LA over the past years as this feud has developed? Could he be biased? Maybe he should recuse himself from the case?

Personally I found the complaint that Lance filed in Texas to be quite disturbing. I will assume that what was written about the process in the complaint is accurate. If so, the process is inherently unfair -- I don't think that can be reasonably challenged. It is one thing if the process is predicated upon a failed drug test. A sample was given, it was tested, and came back as X.

What USADA is doing here is of a completely different nature. Such things as not allowing cross examination, denying access to exculpatory evidence, denying access to information such as the names of the accusers, picking the arbitrators, have the power to fire those arbitrators with no oversight is really appalling.

I know many on here are convinced of Lance's guilt. I admit to having the same thoughts. I really wish he is clean, but even if he isn't he should be allowed a fair process in determining that guilt. That does not exist here.

---

-----------------------------------
team website: http://snappletriteam.com/

team blog: http://snappletriteam.com/?page_id=10

Bingo. Well said and those are my sentiments as well.

had i started writing about usada's excesses at the moment this lance thing blew up, i think your point would be absolutely valid. and, it still is valid for all of those who are only interested in usada's bad attachment to good process if it's just somebody they like who's caught up in the usada web.

however, i've been writing about this stuff for more than a decade, that is, wada processes prior to usada, and usada's processes since. and how all this intersects with usat, wtc, itu, specifically when those agencies cede responsibility for anti-doping to usada without doing a thing about usada's process problems.

so, no, you can't hang that one on me.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

We dont know that he's biased other than against doping. To him Lance may be just a doper that he has proof is doping, and is willign to do what it takes to get him. With lance, because of his money and connections it takes more. I dont know Tygart, but I know that Lance isnt just fighting this in court, he brings in his buddies to work it in the court of public opinion, which is the same kind of celebrity status using crap we see all the time out of hollywood.

Instant Classic! You made my day.

Ohhhh there we go... pulling out the big guns. Now will Lance race Kona? :)

So NOW do people understand that he's not just another rider - not some powerless guy singled out due to success envy?

Of course, all this doens't change the fact that USADA has in their hands some damning evidence. That's not going to disappear no matter what. It's just a matter of how and when that evidence gets into the public domain.

None of it removes the evidence that they have in hand.

Fair enough, but the point I'd like you to think about; come up with a better system that gives athletes their rights, and still gives the anti-dopers the capabilities to do their job? Every time I try, i come back to athletes working with the WADA/IF/NF's together to make something better, all in the name of anti-doping. And yet as we see each week, and with the unions in the US pro sports a prime example, many athletes dont want anti-doping, because the next guy who is better than them without drugs will take their job.

For now this is I honestly believe the best most workable system. Communication needs to get better, rules need to get clearer and tighter (The B sample going away is going to make things very interesting in a couple years), but flexibility needs to be maintained. Did you know Jordan didn't know about the specified list until I told him about it? How is that possible? Rules arent where USADA/WADA need to get better (for the most part) communicating and working with their athletes is their biggest flaw.

Not only have you lost all sense of objectivity, but you've apparently also lost the ability to use apostrophes.

Here we go again. And what evidence might that me?