Slowman is not alone in Lance process concerns

Triathlon Forum
21

It is important to remember that they don’t have the power to search and seize, you can always refuse. You just can’t race under their umbrella any more if you do.

This may still be too draconian for sure, but it is not quite like having the government being able to demand it or send you to jail.

PEDs are not going away, but things can be much better or much worse. The biopassport currently makes things MUCH better, in my opinion.

If we totally stopped fighting it, one consequence you have to accept is that women’s sport would be completely destroyed. It would cease to exist.

and that USADA alone is exempt from unreasonable search and seizure - would be troubling to anyone. but apparently not to some. i find that notable.

I’m with you. Note that Lance had many out of competition tests and he beat those too.

I long ago realized that PED use in sports is something that will never go away… ever. It is very much a part of it at the elite level and as medical science advances I expect it will become a bigger part, not smaller.

So if we want to still have sports, then the question is how draconian do we wish the authorities to become in order to fight this losing battle? It seems that the people who naively believe that sport can be PED-free… if only we’d be more hard**-core about stopping it…** are the ones pushing for the strictest most invasive measures. And if a few innocent people have their lives ruined… oh well.

But the PEDs aren’t going away anyhow. The harder you fight it, the greater the rewards for getting away with it.

22

“they don’t have the power to search and seize”

i think that was the concern of the article. the author feels that, based on the success of the Armstrong case, the USADA thinks the USADA merits investigatory power. well, subpoena power often accompanies that and i for one would be very leary of the USADA being able to subpoena my records from my doctor simply because i paid the one day license and placed third in the local 70.3.

i agree with your numbered suggestions above. those are good starting points. i would encourage more discussion if we are ever going to drug test recreational participants. even the Moats business raises some concerns and his case was clear cut.

edited for black text

23

well, subpoena power often accompanies that and i for one would be very leary of the USADA being able to subpoena my records from my doctor simply because i paid the one day license and placed third in the local 70.3.

As would I, but I’m pretty sure they don’t have that power.

24

well, subpoena power often accompanies that and i for one would be very leary of the USADA being able to subpoena my records from my doctor simply because i paid the one day license and placed third in the local 70.3.

As would I, but I’m pretty sure they don’t have that power.

Aren’t they acting as if they have that power? Weren’t they sitting in on confidential grand jury testimony? Didn’t they somehow get access all sorts of documentation under the color of some real or imagined authority? Aren’t they putting themselves out there as if they are part of the law enforcement / federal court system? Seems like they had access to all sorts of stuff that made me wonder how they got it.

I guess I support them, but for me, the ends don’t justify the means. The means need to be continually and thoroughly examined.

I also agree with you that Dan’s timing was off, but I think his argument is spot on.

25

I’ll argue that the timing of Dan’s argument was perfect. For without LA this discussion would never, ever had gotten this much attention (and I don’t mean just ST).

Just think to what unprecedented lenghts USADA whent to in this case

26

What specific action that USADA took in the Lance case do you think is the most alarming and inappropriate?

Just think to what unprecedented lenghts USADA whent to in this case

27

Remember when you watch Oprah tonight, that just months ago Lance was trying to end USADA to keep his lie intact. The Sensenbrenner bill. The LiveStrong lobbyist. This could have worked out very differently. Lance could still be a hero and a 7-time TdF Champion, and the United States agency for enforcing clean sport could have been, for all intents and purposes, terminated.

Keep that in mind. That Lance was willing and desiring of this outcome only months ago, when you watch him apologize and beg for forgiveness tonight.

28

Not so much any specific action but the general sense that their actions increased in ways maybe not envisioned in their charter. Whose to say that the next step (if there is a next step) goes even further. I mean where are the checks and balances?

29

I’m going to have a really hard time discussing it if we are just going to talk about the ‘general sense’ of their actions.

Especially if we think change is called for, we need specific rules and limits.

So, what specific action was most inappropriate or alarming, in the Lance case?

I can’t think of one, at least not one that I am certain really happened. I think they primarily asked people for things and got them voluntarily (or, of course, under duress of being banned longer)

Not so much any specific action but the general sense that their actions increased in ways maybe not envisioned in their charter. Whose to say that the next step (if there is a next step) goes even further. I mean where are the checks and balances?

30

If we totally stopped fighting it, one consequence you have to accept is that women’s sport would be completely destroyed. It would cease to exist.

I certainly don’t want to stop fighting it. I think the authorities should spend more money on test protocols and procedures. I would basically just like everyone to admit that it isn’t going away, and make an effort to put together the most sensible program for managing it.

Even though the motives of the participants are very different, this has a lot of parallels with the “war on drugs”. A lot of BS and negative consequences based on a naive notion that we can eradicate this “evil” if we only press hard enough.

31

“It is important to remember that they don’t have the power to search and seize, you can always refuse. You just can’t race under their umbrella any more if you do.”

you’re right. and this is the insidious part of it. because it sits just below the threshold of criminality, it’s not covered by constitutional protection. and because so many people - the great majority of people - see what we do as nothing more important than a video game, there’s no impetus to enshrine some protection for those of us in the sporting world.

imagine of USADA could show up to a doctor’s house, a teacher’s house, a lawyer, a congressman, and say “pee in the cup” or “let me stick this needle in your arm.” imagine that if you refused you would lose your ability to practice medicine, or law, or teach.

on the other hand, it’s no big thing. it’s not like these folks would go to jail or anything.

32

I don’t have to imagine it, employers in many professions do exactly that. They show up, and demand that you pee in a cup or you don’t work there any more.

I have had to do it. Other times when I was more free to do so, I have refused to do it purely out of principle.

I don’t like it either, since my job doesn’t involve anything where it would be important to do it.

If I operated a crane or something, I would be pretty ok with it. But I do support employers rights to do whatever the hell they want, within reason.

That gets trickier though when it isn’t just a race that you are denied working at, or a sport, but almost all sports.

I might lose my job by refusing to pee in a cup, but I don’t lose my programmer card.

“It is important to remember that they don’t have the power to search and seize, you can always refuse. You just can’t race under their umbrella any more if you do.”

you’re right. and this is the insidious part of it. because it sits just below the threshold of criminality, it’s not covered by constitutional protection. and because so many people - the great majority of people - see what we do as nothing more important than a video game, there’s no impetus to enshrine some protection for those of us in the sporting world.

imagine of USADA could show up to a doctor’s house, a teacher’s house, a lawyer, a congressman, and say “pee in the cup” or “let me stick this needle in your arm.” imagine that if you refused you would lose your ability to practice medicine, or law, or teach.

on the other hand, it’s no big thing. it’s not like these folks would go to jail or anything.

33

The day my USATriathlon license expires is the day USADA has no authority to demand a biological sample from me as an amateur athlete. I can then dope myself silly for as long as I want with impunity, and renew my license thereafter.

If there is some wording in my license application that empowers USADA outside the contract lifespan, I am unaware of it.

34

Does this mean that if I race in AG races and am on cortico-steroids for, say, bad allergies or hemmorhoids, I should be doing something before I race? I honeslty never even thougth of that.

How far back do I have to worry? I just ask because my 6 year old daughter had to get a steroid injection for a bad allergy attack and it wouldn’t have even occurred to me that someone might test her, or me.

Seriously, what do you all do?

35

I’m going to have a really hard time discussing it if we are just going to talk about the ‘general sense’ of their actions.

Especially if we think change is called for, we need specific rules and limits.

So, what specific action was most inappropriate or alarming, in the Lance case?

I can’t think of one, at least not one that I am certain really happened. I think they primarily asked people for things and got them voluntarily (or, of course, under duress of being banned longer)

Not so much any specific action but the general sense that their actions increased in ways maybe not envisioned in their charter. Whose to say that the next step (if there is a next step) goes even further. I mean where are the checks and balances?

So, your ok with USADA doing pretty much anything it wants as long as the sport is clean? That’s as vague as my concerns are. I’m just in favor of a review and then appropriate and fair standards are established. If this would include feedback from the sporting community (athletes, race directors, etc) so much the better.

36

Yeah,

But the case isn’t about doping as much as it’s about running a doping program, & forcing others too… If Lance was just a Landis, - things would be different…

37

So, your ok with USADA doing pretty much anything it wants as long as the sport is clean?

Absolutely not.

That’s as vague as my concerns are. I’m just in favor of a review and then appropriate and fair standards are established. If this would include feedback from the sporting community (athletes, race directors, etc) so much the better.

It is weird to me that you have concerns yet cannot cite any specific action taken in the Lance case that you feel is inappropriate or alarming.

If I were someone in authority that had the power to change things, you would not be persuading me to do anything with an argument like that.

38

In order to abide by the rules, you need to check if the drug is question is on the banned list, if it is, you would need a TUE to compete.

Some drugs are banned only IN competition, others are banned out of competition as well.

The steroid injection for allergies is likely either not on the list or only on the “in competition list” so she should be fine to go crush her age group.

I have asthma and one of the over the counter treatments for it is on the banned list, so I don’t use it. (It isn’t a very safe or good drug anyway)

Does this mean that if I race in AG races and am on cortico-steroids for, say, bad allergies or hemmorhoids, I should be doing something before I race? I honeslty never even thougth of that.

How far back do I have to worry? I just ask because my 6 year old daughter had to get a steroid injection for a bad allergy attack and it wouldn’t have even occurred to me that someone might test her, or me.

Seriously, what do you all do?

39

Remember when you watch Oprah tonight, that just months ago Lance was trying to end USADA to keep his lie intact. The Sensenbrenner bill. The LiveStrong lobbyist. This could have worked out very differently. Lance could still be a hero and a 7-time TdF Champion, and the United States agency for enforcing clean sport could have been, for all intents and purposes, terminated.

Keep that in mind. That Lance was willing and desiring of this outcome only months ago, when you watch him apologize and beg for forgiveness tonight.

+10000

40

So, your ok with USADA doing pretty much anything it wants as long as the sport is clean?

Absolutely not.

That’s as vague as my concerns are. I’m just in favor of a review and then appropriate and fair standards are established. If this would include feedback from the sporting community (athletes, race directors, etc) so much the better.

It is weird to me that you have concerns yet cannot cite any specific action taken in the Lance case that you feel is inappropriate or alarming.

If I were someone in authority that had the power to change things, you would not be persuading me to do anything with an argument like that.

Ok, how about the fact that almost 100% of the evidence used was witness testimony? The agency is named USADA but because they had no case based on drug positives they chose another route (with a lot of the legwork done by the Fed’s). Do you think that is not an expansion of their power base that was never previously anticipated? Think about it, all I’m saying is there needs to be a more defined role for what USADA’s purpose is and how it can act. And that there needs to be input into that role. As much as LA bent/broke the rules why would USADA not be subject to those same pressures?