"Unfortunately, Dan's posting history on his Forum far, FAR outweighs that piece."

well, as you said earlier on: "Not going to engage you on a discussion here, since our individual positions will not change from such discussion. In fact, this will be my final post to you on this."

i agree with some of what you wrote: that our individual positions will not change. i'm an advocate both for the fight against doping, as well as the fight for everyone adhering to the rules set up to execute that fight. you're apparently for anti-doping, which i commend you for, but you apparently do not mind whether the efforts to catch dopers adhere to any rules set up to protect those who might be the victims of a process run afoul. yes, you and i disagree on this.

the only differences between us, other than that, are: that you seem interested in making all these posts personal, and getting in your digs, which is par for the course; and obviously i can't agree with you when you said that this will by your final post on this.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I have the same sentiment but it could be selective perception on my part. It seems to me like he would specifically in this case not want to shut all Armstrong doors for good before, well, before what still has to happen?

For me, Armstrong is done for good. Case closed. Waste of energy. I just hope that we now all can move on to keep fighting drugs where it's still needed.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

I wasn't really sure what to reply to as you, Slowman, and Uli have commented a few times on this thread and others about some of the testing. I think that one of the issues that Slowman has with the WTC's testing...and I don't want to put words in his mouth...is that WTC to some degree sold us on the pro membership fee as going towards drug testing. He has asked me, in posts, how many times I have been tested. And, in 2010/11/12 the answer to that is exactly once after a 5th at IMUK in 2010. Never OOC because I am not in the pool. He has also asked, in other posts, to what degree there is testing in the WTC events since part of the pro membership fee was about an anti-drug policy. An op-ed on the WTC testing program would be great...unless I missed that one.

Maybe it should be 'just' WTC putting the money into testing at their events. But, I also think that Rev3 could do the same. But, if USAT were to put money into testing at Rev/Lifetime/Etc, then I think that they should do the same for WTC at the US races since they share sanctioning. I think that USAT/USADA should put some of the money into testing of WTC races/athletes since they work together 'closely' in the testing of some of the athletes to avoid athletes having to fill out duplicate whereabouts forms, etc. And really since they all operate under the assumption that they are working towards a cleaner sport. There are enough professional triathletes that race WTC and USAT races to warrant, in my opinion, additional testing. For instance, the Mrs is on an OOC testing list that is shared with WTC/USAT but has yet to be tested this year OOC. The Mrs. fills out here whereabouts through the USADA's system as opposed to the WADA ADAMs system. So, I don't know who calls up the testers WTC or USAT to test her OOC?

Really the above is just some rambling. And, it's not to defend Slowman as he can certainly do that himself. But, he has certainly asked questions related to the WTC testing process, etc. And, Dan can at least be a bit vocal about some of these issues regarding testing...as an outside party so to speak. It bugs me a little bit that at least a few more of the pros aren't a little more outspoken on the testing process or whatever. They might be a little bit vocal on twitter or FB with little jabs here and there, but overall there hasn't been much of a push from either side (athletes or organization) to explain the details of the program or how it might be improved.

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

There is definitely a difference in the nuance from the French finalement to the English finally. But even if you take the word out in both languages, it boils down to the same thing. A retested 'b' sample from 13 years ago, well outside the statue of limitations, with no 'c' sample and on which a judge has already ruled the ineligibility.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TriRaceBook.com
.
Hawaii Qualification Analysis

"So what/where did USADA do wrong?"

as you'll read, if you move up to my first comment on this thread, i did not accuse USADA of doing anything wrong. i said that if the evidence they're announcing was uncovered according to WADA's code, then, righteous bust. nothing done wrong. if it was not uncovered according to WADA's code, then, unrighteous bust. and that's a specific problem, since USADA is WADA's official and ONLY ambassador, and husbander and protector, of that code.

"If they've been in the wrong, what's the next step in fixing it? Lance/USADA going in front of CAS?"

in my view, the arbitration should be more akin to the disciplinary proceedings that doctors and lawyers face than commercial litigation that it is assumed to equal partners face (when citibank arbitrates against j.p. morgan chase). accordingly, i think that the u.s. senate should force USADA to amend its arbitration rules, because it's clear no one else will.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

" think that one of the issues that Slowman has with the WTC's testing...and I don't want to put words in his mouth...is that WTC to some degree sold us on the pro membership fee as going towards drug testing."

what i've said consistently is that:

1. WTC owes the pros an accounting of that $750 x 800 or however many athlete pay this, because as we have chronicled extensively, this is how the program was sold. if USADA, or USAT, or other NADOs, are now paying into this fund, then the testing should correspondingly increase. if the athletes don't get this accounting from WTC, were a group of them to sue WTC forcing that accounting i would be on the side of the athletes.

2. i think rev3, challenge and the other brands that fall outside of that NADO testing umbrella should pay into this fund, because right now they're getting a free ride.

3. i think WTC should pay in an additional amount, because i don't think the athletes should foot the bill for all their testing. i think the RDs get value from a clean sport, and i think WTC should pay for that.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Thanks for that explaination. I've just got 1 question. From your comments, you seem to suggest that if the process is done wrong/unfairly, we will have problems. So, I'll ask this, what makes you not simply adhere to the ruling that Lance is an doper? What makes you keep saying the process needs to be fair/right? It *seems* just from reading your comments, that you are still on the fence with believing/thinking this was done with all t's crossed and i's dotted.


And not trying to get into a argument with you or anything, it just seems like your not willing to accept USADA's judgement, *yet*, but yet you dont really come out and say they did wrong?

---

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

"I have the same sentiment but it could be selective perception on my part."

i would have thought that the citations i gave you demonstrate that we have a pretty well rounded view on this. i spent quite a bit of time going back and ferreting out these citations. i could display for you the same thinking on the forum - why would i write the articles that i do and argue the opposite on the forum?

paulo has something else going on. he's got a longstanding beef with me that he's never explained, that i don't understand, and that he's not man enough to own up to. if i were you i would not get sucked into his psychopathology. but, really, that's up to you.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Then write them in a way that is interesting. You guys know how to do it. You do it all the time. Repost it in the forums. Have the three of you keep the discussion going. FB it, tweet it. I'll happily assist to spread it FWIW.

You gave up a quarter of your income by not running these shady ads. How much do you have to lose for stepping on WTCs feet? I know you get whiney phone calls and emails from pros and RDs when you talk about doping. Ask Andrew where the OOC testing is. Where is the AG testing?

Triathlon is getting closer and closer to be as dirty as cycling. The last missing component is organized team doping.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

No it does not. Who said that USADA are talking about the 1999 sample that is so well documented?

"So, I'll ask this, what makes you not simply adhere to the ruling that Lance is an doper?"

that's why i'm not pulling threads that say, "lance is a doper." because he's been adjudicated a doper by the process. we don't allow you to accuse people of doping until the process has run its course and ruled officially. prior to that, you can't do it. after that, you can. accordingly, our stance on what you can write on this forum changed a few days ago.

now, me, personally, i can still have my views about whether someone is or isn't a doper, irrespective of whether the process has or hasn't decided one way or the other. for example, right now i have a view as to whether george zimmerman is guilty of murder in the death of trayvon martin. after all the court cases have been decided, i will still hold a view, and that view may or may not be in line with the decision of the court. but i will respect the decision of the court. accordingly, i expect the sporting world to respect the decision, that is, if you're any race at all that sanctions with USAT, you cannot let lance race. if you want lance to race, then you can't sanction or accept a sanction. it's that simple. that's the system. that's the process.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I was just honest with you saying that I have the same perception as he does. I called it "selective" because I may well be wrong.

I call Paulo a friend and I don't get "sucked" into anything.

Either way, let's not get personal. We have a chance here that we should not miss out on (see my previous post). Thanks.

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

Well, I've addressed some of it (I'm guessing Paulo and Uli have the same impression), that your bias has shown by your eagerness to defend American cheaters (Tyler, Floyd, and now Lance), but you not doing the same for Contador, Valverde, and Ullrich (to name a few). In their case, it seems as if due process is not needed. I've told you that before, and I still have this sentiment. Maybe you don't feel this way, I don't know, but your posts suggest otherwise.

"Then write them in a way that is interesting. You guys know how to do it. You do it all the time. Repost it in the forums. Have the three of you keep the discussion going. FB it, tweet it. I'll happily assist to spread it FWIW."

we really do try to write them interesting. there is no conspiracy here to be interesting in some articles and boring in others. we served 9.2 million pages last month to 585,000 unique visitors. a greater and greater percentage of these pages is our articles, rather than our reader forum. we facebook and tweet every article we write. we're 21 percent up, year-over-year, in page views.

nevertheless, whenever we write about federation politics, or anti-doping, people are not interested. that's why maybe 2000 or 3000 out of 150,000 annual members of USAT vote.

now, other organizations, they would just not write these articles. they would accept the cenegenics ads, and not fight the anti-doping fight. so, i hope while you're giving me hell you're giving them double hell. but i have not noticed you doing that.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

For professionals...I'm sure you've seen it...

http://ironmanpromembership.com/anti-doping/

http://ironmanpromembership.com/...doping/testing-pool/

---

Brandon Marsh - Website | @BrandonMarshTX | RokaSports | 1stEndurance | ATC Bikeshop |

"but your posts suggest otherwise"

readers who've been here a long time have enjoyed your posting history, paulo's, and mine. i'll stand on my record.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

ASO is a for-profit company just like WTC.

Happens all the time in criminal court.

---

___________________________________________
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)

But this isnt criminal court.

---

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

Then write them in a way that is interesting. You guys know how to do it.

Dan Empfield . . . a shill for the dopers AND a dull writer.

i doubt Dan wants me (or anyone else) leaping to his defense. however, i can't resist these arguments.

i like how Dan has fought for the process. the process is bigger than any one person and it has to be beyond corruption. when it strays, then there aren't any good guys left. some people will say that this approach protects the guilty. well, since everyone is innocent until proven guilty, then it really protects the innocent. by safeguarding the rights of the least of us, we preserve the rights of the rest of us. i used to live in Philly. there was (is) a lot of police and prosecutorial misconduct. but don't worry, every time the bill of rights was ignored, we were told its only on really bad guys. nuts to that i say.

as far as the acceptance of the USADA decision on Lance. you don't have to "accept" a decision from a flawed process. in a court of law there is a thing called Jury nullification. it adds that layer of protection. for this doping business, there isn't any threat of imprisonment; Lance gets to ignore the process, flip it the bird, and go for a bike ride. that's fine for him. his life is secure. if he was a lesser figure, the results could be more damning.

and where does it go next? it could be over. USADA looks like it played by the rules. Lance has chosen his slice of the rules and declined to proceed. IF the USADA now chooses to pile on; release something that should be secret, violate one of its own provisions, etc, the you can bet that a man of Lance's means can fire of the lawyers.

The content is no doubt interesting. But as great as the information is in the piece I am referring to, only hard core dudes like you and me will read it to the end. Online readers have an extremely short attention span as you well know. I hate to say it but I guess you'd have to be more sensationalistic. Use a bold headline. WTC refuses to test AGers - do they not care about AG racing?


I'm not a journalist so please bear with me but I'm sure you get my point.




I'm not giving you "hell". I try to encourage you. I'd like to help. And rest assured I do that wherever I can elsewhere (Livestrong will never be at our expo although we need the money, I got kicked out of the German LC team years ago because I forced DTU to publicize a positive test, you sure remember the doping controls we had at GFNY - I received a lot of heat for that).

---

_________________________________________________
CAMPAGNOLO GRAN FONDO NEW YORK

"I'm not giving you "hell". I try to encourage you."

pardon if most of your posts on this thread to me were less than encouraging. the fact is this: we write more about the fight against doping than any triathlon or cycling periodical period. we inform our own readers of what it means to cheat, and how not to cheat, as regards PEDs, more than any cycling or triathlon periodical period. we are alone in our competitive set in that we refuse ads or ad agencies that do or may display ads that encourage or may encourage PEDs. we are alone in that. we take our own race organizations, and governing bodies, to task when they don't do their own proper parts in the fight against PEDs, and i challenge you to find anyone on our competitive set who does that nearly to the degree we do.

yet your "friends" take every opportunity to snipe, using these pages, rather than to acknowledge what it is we do that is industry leading. daily. and you accuse me of getting personal?

what we stand for is: A) proper process; and B) adherence to the process. from every side. accordingly, lew kidder and i wrote about a third of USAT's bylaws, because the USAT board of directors (back in 2004) was so corrupt that the USOC had to take it over in receivership pending the seating of a new board. one of my "jobs" during this process was to negotiate down $300,000 in legal bills presented to the federation as all sides fought this out in court, and the only "side" not to present legal bills to the federation were lew kidder and i, who did all of what we did pro bono.

so, really, i've given at the office. i've done my fair share. i put on and funded a USAT pro national championship, with a prize purse, at my cost, at the last minute, when the scheduled race folded at the last minute. i sleep really well at night, in the comfort that my needle is pointed at true north as regards my motives for the sport, it's athletes, pro and age group, the governing bodies, the media, and the rest of industry.

as i wrote to one person who's gotten pissy with me in this thread, and who's accused me of having a "lance crusade," i've posted with either "lance" or "armstrong" in the text about 400 times on the forum. find one instance where i maintained lance was innocent of doping; that i thought that in any fair process he would be found innocent; or that it's okay that he took drugs because everybody else did it during his racing tenure; or that i said that i don't think usada should be investigating the past because it was the past. find anywhere where i even once said any of those things.

but if no one can find any of those instances, then, i really recommend a re-think over whether i've got a lance crusade going or not.

what i will admit to is a process crusade. or if you prefer, a rule-of-law crusade. that i will cop to.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Agreed, I'm making a bit of a leap here, based on 'blood samples taken earlier during Armstrong's career'.

I think / hope we will find out a lot more as they prosecute the Bryuneel case.

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TriRaceBook.com
.
Hawaii Qualification Analysis

How else could it be? You expect Dan to stand up and argue that a guy who tested negative should be banned because we all lnow lots of athletes that test negative still cheat?

---

Styrrell

This.

---

"A man must love a thing very much if he practices it without any hope of fame and money, but even practices it without any hope of doing it well." G.K. Chesterton