It's wording like that which demeans USADA's credibility because it does sound like a witch hunt. The outcome is whatever the outcome is. Just choose your words more wisely, Mr. Tygart.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

So, will they retest the samples of the guy they plan on giving the victories to!....wait not under the control of USADA....we will know see how other countries choose to act.

not that i disagree, but i think you'd have to be careful about whether this was translated from the french. the phrase 'finally came back positive' could've been written a few ways in the original, and words like 'enfin' or 'finalement' could mean 'ultimately' instead of 'at last.'

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

 I certainly think he doped, and kinda ho-hum on whether they should actual bust him in the manner they are going about. I think I'm just more pissed that they almost "allow" certain guys to get a soft ban, while they are putting it to Lance. It almost seems like USADA is trying too hard to show why they are justified. It's almost as if they are so worried about how they are viewed, that they kinda are bringing stuff from all angles.

---

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

if these tests were conducted according to WADA's testing protocol, then, lance is righteously busted. if these tests were not conducted according to WADA's protocol then USADA is demonstrating that it feels no compulsion to adhere to WADA's code, even tho it rigorously rejects the idea that any other entity (including the athletes) may stray from WADA's code.

so, the question is: did USADA make tests pubic, and if so were these test results admissible as adverse findings under WADA's code?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Dan, at this point doping is beside the point. There are worse things, and we're going to hear about them soon. Suggest you grab the editorial rudder and tack Slowtwitch to the right side of history while there's still time.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Finally positive, after Tygart's minions had them tainted...

No "ifs" Dan, Lance Armstrong is rightfully busted. Period.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

eric, i feel that i am on the right side of history, which is the side of process. that's been the inexorably correct side of history for the past 250 years, and i'm compelled that it will continue to be.

but on a personal note, eric, i'm frankly tired of you waiting in the tall weeds for every post i might want to make on this subject. i don't know whether your hobby is lance, or me. but i'm tired of whatever beef it is you have with me. my advice: solve the problem you have with me, one way or the other.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Edited that for you.

yea that did sound really bad. Tygart is going to hell, there's no doubt about it.

Agreed, I think your coverage has avoided the excessive hyperbole and noise and simply reported the facts. Up until now, it was more conjecture and innuendo and hearsay.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

"No "ifs" Dan, Lance Armstrong is rightfully busted. Period."

i have no problem with lance being righteously busted. i have no problem with anyone using PEDs to be righteously busted. i have no problem with any cheater being righteously busted, regardless of what method of cheating they use. i applaud the bust.

whether it's lance, or me, or you, or your athletes that you coach, i want to see anyone busted who's busted according to the process we have in place. but whether it's me, or you, or your athletes you coach, if the bust comes via means that are outside the process we all in sport have agreed to, then, that's bullshit.

i *suspect* that USADA may have used an extra-legal process (legal in this case referring to WADA's process for identifying adverse analytics). however, if my suspicion is unfounded, and if USADA used a process that is straight-up according to the WADA code, i am not only willing to concede the point, i'm willing to applaud the point, because the integrity of the sport means more to me than any friendship i have with any athlete.

what i do not understand is why you appear to be cavalier about adherence to the code. or, am i misunderstanding you?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Assuming this is true, is this from the 2009/2010 time period? I assume that would have to be (otherwise doesn't WADA have possession of those prior to 2009).

Also, I'm betting its the 2009/2010 sample which from what I've read previously USADA had said "suggested" doping. So now its clear cut? What changed?

no ambush, I just happened to be reading the thread when you posted. I'll cease commenting to you after this. It's not that I dislike you, quite the contrary, just that I hold you to a higher standard, something not uncommon for people who admire someone, and would hope that Slowtwitch did not hide behind process (which enables the cheaters) but instead took a stand for clean sport. As for Lance, a huge fan, he's not my hobby though (I also am saddened by that ad hominem argument and what you're implying, since you are posting about him too). I am really disappointed about this whole business.

And I'm all for process, and while the process may be flawed, it was followed and produced the correct result.

There's something bigger than process though, and that's called a system. Systemized doping beats a drug testing process every time, especially when the corruption and rot go to the highest levels and the systems have the cheat codes. So now, the authorities are putting their own systems in place, and attacking the network, as they should, rather than chase ghosts testing samples.

And then, there's one more thing that trumps them all.. enterprise. When you run an enterprise built on extensive lying and fraud, which stops at nothing to crush the lives of real people for speaking the truth about you, leveraging millions of dollars of legal expertise, there is nowhere to go for the little guy.

So in the end, what do we have? Justice. For the little guy. For sport. Justice has been served and will continue to be served.

The moral arc of the universe is long, and bends toward justice, not process. I would ask, one final time, that you get on board.

thanks for your consideration

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Here's something I've wondered. IF, the tests that an athlete takes are passed by said athlete, and then X number of years re-tested and found to be doping, what confidence do we have in the actual testing process. Hell, I guess what confidence do we have in the process as a whole?

I get that the athlete will probaly always be ahead of the testing, but is there a point where a test result should stand? Essentially, it seems like the actual testing results dont really matter, if we can just come back and retest and retest them. So, should we have a different doping system?

---

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

What if they're only being used to support the other evidence rather than being an actual "analytic finding"? The EPO was there in his '99 samples regardless of the fact that the process wasn't followed so he couldn't be sanctioned based on it. Not a lawyer, wouldn't want to be one, or even that well versed in WADA due process but I could imagine this might make a difference?

Why wouldn't you trust the process if there was no test available for a drug (e.g. EPO, HgH) but then once the test was available it was used to test old samples?

Dan,

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.

What I hope, and I keep hoping and have been hoping for many years, is to see you out fighting for clean sport. Every time you talk about doping, you're siding with the cheaters. Always with the cheaters. When you come up and wave the flag of due process, guess what, it's to protect a cheater.

What I would like to see, and I am sure I am not alone here, is to see you (and others) fighting for clean sport. Instead of coming up to defend Tyler or Floyd or Lance, stand up to make USADA a better organization. Maybe do some fundraising to help anti-doping. Do ANYTHING that fights for a clean sport and doesn't keep the cheaters out there destroying clean sport.

Thanks,

Paulo

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

exactly

"would hope that Slowtwitch did not hide behind process"

i think you'll want to rethink the phrase above. using an easily defensible train of thought, you dishonor the very cause that's most close to your heart when you write that it's even possible to "hide behind process." the very people that you most want to honor fight and die for one reason and one reason only. one reason only. process. when a politician, or a soldier, or anyone in high public life, raises his hand and vows to protect and defend a set of guiding laws, he's putting his life and his honor on the line to defend a process. the u.s. constitution is nothing but the enshrining and codifying of a process. that's all it is.

me, i'm very happy to hide behind the u.s. constitution. very happy to do that. guilty as charged. i'll hide behind it, in front of it, above it, underneath it. i'll both hide behind it and stand in front of it and defend it. i'm all about the constitution.

now, this particular process - sporting code - is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. nevertheless, you either are a "process" guy or you are not. if you are not a process guy, and, if you think it's okay to play fast and loose with "process" then i can only assume that's just the way you are about process in general. i hope that's not the case. i hope your attachment to process turns out to be more along the lines of my attachment to process.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't agree, I think samples should always be open to scrutiny as testing improves. The only people that should be concerned about this are the cheats, who's samples contain dope. I don't believe they should escape based on a statute of limitation.

I believe it is people's mindset that need to change in that current testing is not the gold standard for catching current dopers. Testing is always playing catch up to the dopers. It catches the stupid and inconveniences the more organised dopers. Sadly, a clean testing record is not absolute proof of a clean athlete. I don't believe that in the current day and age, absolute proof exists that an athlete is clean.

Saying something is illegal, yet you cant test for it with the athletes to me is odd.

---

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

Regardless it's the way it was/is. EPO was available for over a decade before the test was ready, I'm still not sure if there is an HgH test they're using. Still no test for homologous blood doping.