I agree that there are many angles that have yet to be explored but I don't think Hamilton's book is the place to start. It's still he said she said. I personally need something a little more concrete than an ex-cyclist who probably really needs the money saying a bunch of stuff that will make him a lot of money. Sensationalism sells. Just because it's in a published book doesn't make it true.

That being said, I would like the front page to start exploring this topic. My guess is they're waiting on something that can't easily be refuted as hearsay.

not sure i get the closing question.


you're looking for a book review perhaps?
if so, that's a fair point. i do remember Macca's book getting some time.
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...ere_to_Win_2071.html

the rest of the points, i may have heard them before.

Proof that the front page needs to act. Start with the word 'hearsay'. It would have been available for cross examination. He didnt show up

Perhaps we should separate Slowman the guy posting on the forum from Dan Empfield/Editorial team writing front page news.

You are right, the front page news should be reported as "the news". Then there can also be editorial content with some analysis from "both sides" that is objectives. Then there is banter down in the bowels of the forum between posters where Slowman is just one of us, rather than having his editorial hat on. The front page news and editorial content should be based on facts and what is going on in the market/media. Forum banter can be based on personal opinions/conjecture as it often is.

So if we view it this way, you are probably correct that the front page should present the overall story based on facts available at the time.

If I view it that way, the front page story should be along the lines of:

• USADA charged Armstrong
• WTC banned Amstrong prior to completion of investigation and USADA/WADA sanctions being levied
• Amstrong refuses to testify and defend.
• Amstrong accepts USADA sanctions
• Now UCI has to figure out what to do with the 7 Tour de France titles
• Hamilton publishes tell all book
• Vaughters also comes clean and implicates several former USPS riders that currently race for him

By publishing something along these lines ST would be completely objective in summarizing what has happened to date while at the same time, not being in Slowman's desire for all athletes to have due process and a fair trial (whether this is happening or not can still be investigated separately/in parallel). In fairness, there have been some articles covering a subset of this.

Personally I would be most interested in some type of a summary article that rolls up the "spilling of the beans" from all fronts. I think fans would be very interested in this and ST would be adding a lot of value to the overall understanding of what went on.

While many of us disagree with Dan on the Armstrong case (me included) I think most of us want to see change in the future. Let's focus on that now and leave the past to the tabloids.

I've asked Dan twice in a previous thread (where he was very engaged) but never received an answer to the below. It was a busy thread so I give him the benefit of doubt. I'd really like to hear his and everyone's thoughts.




That's exactly why I am looking at you. I have a tiny fraction of the influence that ST has. I'm looking at ST to do its part as a stakeholder in Triathlon. You say you do your part. I think you might want to consider an additional strategy.

1. Put more pressure on the big pocket RDs instead of focusing on the federation. Where are the investigative interviews with Messick, Walchshoefer and co.? They will talk to you. I doubt you need me to ask them on behalf of ST. This does by no means have to be confrontational. If enough RDs get this, it can even be turned into a business opportunity. Nothing wrong with that. Think corporate social responsibility of RDs.

2. Tell the clean athletes that they have should have a right to have their competitors tested for all the money they spend on entries. RDs who put on events that invite fierce competition have an obligation to do their part to provide fair racing conditions.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

The issue that I seemed to have is that some wanted to *seemingly* (I say that because of the tone of posts made it seem like there was foul play going on) portray USADA as doing something wrong, always claiming to make sure it's process based. But when pressed on the issue, come back with, suggesting there is not wrong doing as of yet. I just think the tone of some, is a bit like riding the fence, so either come out with it or not, but to seemingly insinuate that there is wrong doing but then back track, well that I kinda feel is misleading.

---

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

I pursued this at some length in the other thread. The implication that there was wrongdoing on the part of USADA (to the point of *almost* specifying what that wrongdoing might be) without admitting that there was the least shred of evidence of said wrongdoing. I felt and feel that this is extremely disingenuous especially when coming from a 'voice of influence' in the world of endurance sports. It taints the debate needlessly. Let's look at things on the basis of evidence.

If we want to talk about process, then the fact that LA declined arbitration should be front and center. You don't get to complain about the process when the guy you're supporting declined to let that process move forward. LA, if he really felt the process was that tainted, had a chance to challenge it and expose its flaws in public. He chose not to. That closes the book on the 'process' and all that's left is cleanup.

So we must accept Hamilton's account at face value, treating it as absolute truth? That's no less intellectually honest than saying Lance always tells the truth. We should be as skeptical of Tyler's account as we are of Lance's, and examine both words and motive as objectively as we can before jumping to any conclusions. Anything else is just trying to justify your own preconceived notions.

Mind you, I'm not saying that Tyler's book is wrong - I have not read it yet, nor do I know the man. And I'm not defending Lance either - if, as slowman says, the bust is righteous, then he deserves sanction. But slowman's point is that USADA's process is not transparent, and that lack of transparency is troubling.

-David

i thought i'd written everything i needed to write in that thread. i still do think that. i've already told you that we have an editorial schedule that includes what you're asking for below. for some reason, that didn't seem to suffice. i don't know what else to write to you.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

+1

No you didn't. One of my questions still is:

Where are the investigative interviews with Messick, Walchshoefer and co.?

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

I completely agree.

My sense is that some of those complaining about USADA's 'process' a few months ago, were primarily concerned with the fact that those accused were not being given all the evidence prior to having to make the decision on whether or not to contest the allegations via arbitration. Of course, some details of the accusations were spelled out in the charging letter and all the details would have been provided to the accused well prior to the arbitration hearings beginning had they opted to go to arbitration, so it's debatable the extent to which this was a flaw in USADA's process. I have no strong opinion on this, but the bottom line seems to be that this specific element of USADA's process was a) known by athletes before they signed their pro cards, and b) sits within WADA's code. Judge Sparks seemed to think it was ok. Maybe it should be changed in the future to give the accused more details prior to their having to chose whether or not to go to arbitration, but that's a separate issue.

But now I don't hear so much of this specific complaint any more, nor any other specific complaint. Instead, now they seem to say "as long as USADA proceded according to WADA's code, then I'm happy with USADA's process" and of course WADA has come out in support of USADA's processes, so this should be a non-issue. Maybe I'm missing something though.

Try reading the book, including the footnotes from other sources, as well as other trustworthy info already available on the internet. Be skeptical - that's good. But open your eyes.

I can't disagree too much with this. Even though I'm sick of the whole Lance thing, I do think keeping the issue front and centre is important in terms of getting to the bottom of the culture of performance enhancement in sport (drugs, devices ... gene therapy in the future?). Whether Slowtwitch is the right venue for this or not is up for debate. If it is, rather than any front page space be taken by Lance, maybe Slowtwitch can leverage its stature in endurance sport to take a more active role in exploring/exposing the culture of performance enhancement (ethics and legality) in general (Lance being just one part of it, a big one, for now) as well as exploring 'the process', politics, etc. to flush out the gaps. The platform may need an upgrade to enable this, but leveraging the Slowtwitch community to create a 'wiki' on the topic may work, leaving the forum to discussion, debate and pink fonts.

---

Head down, thumbs up, give'r
@barrettdj

The process didn't have a chance to go forward. Nobody can complain about the transparency or lack thereof because the accused chose to effectively enter a plea of 'no contest'.

We can't talk about process because there WAS NO PROCESS. USADA gave Lance the chance to participate in the process. If it was or was not transparent, we would have found that out as the arbitration proceeded. But instead Lance chose to halt the process and accept the sanction.

Now if you want to talk about the process of evidence gathering... that's different. That definitely happened. But I'd suggest that if you're looking for transparency in the investigative process you'll have a hard time finding precedent to support your position.

"No you didn't. One of my questions still is: Where are the investigative interviews with Messick, Walchshoefer and co.?"

yes, i did. i did answer you.

if you aren't satisfied with the pace and content of what we write on slowtwitch, i suggest you take a crack at it yourself. otherwise, you'll read what you read on slowtwitch when we print it. or, not. as you choose.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

This is key. All the evidence that we have says very clearly that from WADA's perspective, USADA has done everything by the book. So implying that this is not the case is basically dishonest.

And let's not forget that a Federal judge also ruled that USADA was following due process.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

If you were accused of some offense, and the only evidence against you were witness statements, and you would not have access to the list of witnesses nor have the opportunity to cross-examine them during your trial or arbitration, how confident would you be that you would get a fair hearing? That is the situation that Lance was in, to the best of my understanding. It's easy for us to say that he should fight to the end if he is truly innocent, but can you honestly say that you would do the same if you were in his position?

As to the evidence gathering, one thing that disturbs me is that much of the evidence that USADA is using is based on the FDA investigation conducted by Jeff Novitsky - I was under the impression that grand jury testimony was supposed to be secret, yet USADA had access to that. I may be wrong, but I believe that using such grand jury testimony outside of the investigation it was convened for is questionable at best. And if USADA obtained witness statements with promises of lesser sanction for the involved parties, then that should be clearly stated so that motives are not questioned.

Again, I'm not defending Lance, but I do have questions about USADA's process. Questioning the process is not the same as saying it's inherently bad, but rather that it needs the transparency that will prevent such questions from arising in the first place.

-David

If you were accused of some offense, and the only evidence against you were witness statements, and you would not have access to the list of witnesses nor have the opportunity to cross-examine them during your trial or arbitration, how confident would you be that you would get a fair hearing? That is the situation that Lance was in, to the best of my understanding.

____________

I dont think you are correct there. I think he would have gotten full access to everything IF he went into arbitration, he was just upset that he wasnt given that access before he had to make a judgement on whether to actually go into the arbitration. Now that can be debated, but since the cyclists, teams, natl. team management, doping controls all came up with this "process", and I've never heard of anyone complaining about it before all this, I dont think you can then say it's "unfair".

---

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

How is defending the process the same as defending LA? One of the biggest reasons LA still has a bunch of defenders, even after an adverse USADA ban, is the USADA looks like the Keystone Kops, largely because the process of banning LA seems to be a moving target.

People who defend the process always get killed when a trail is ongoing against a bad guy, but when sloppy work allows a bad guy to go free where are critics then.? A robust process helps ensure the guilty are found guilty more than the guilty go free.

---

Styrrell

I can't even find the story at the start of the USADA thing on this site anymore. The one based only on the WSJ article, which helps start the ball rolling - without any reason as yet - to view Tygart suspiciously. It's subtle, but put yourself in Tygart's position.

No time for other articles, however.

Or, read those legal explanation articles (by the lawyer) on Lance's constitutional challenge. Useful, for what they are. But they appear to be there instead of asking a trial lawyer what he or she might think about the prima facie case described in the letter, or the chances Lance would have had if he had actually shown up for his hearing.

No time for those articles either.

Why do I care?

In all other respects I think this forum and website is run superbly, by quality folks who are highly intelligent, very knowledgable, and have the bests interests of sport and expression in mind. Starting with Slowman. I truly do. But on this issue it just seems so disappointingly enabling of wrongdoing, and on an important issue.

Better that 100 bad guys go free than 1 innocent guy is convicted. That's why the process is actually more important than the characters involved in any given instance. If not, you get what you get in dictatorships or in Communist govenments, where the right of the individual to a fair trial is essentially non existent.

This isn't true. USADA would have given the accused all the evidence well prior to the arbitration hearing, once they had chosen to go to arbitration. LA chose not to go to arbitration but instead to accept all the charges and sanctions.


This is your assumption but we really don't know how the evidence was gathered. I suspect the Fed investigation was enough to finally get some witnesses to spill the beans (under the threat of perjury) but that does not mean it was how USADA obtained its evidence. So why speculate about this until we know?