Lance Armstrong - about time too!

[djbarnes]

Originally Posted by x129

I am saying the 10 million dollars is going to the usada if they investigate lance or not. Given they have the money, I have no problem with them doing their job.

Lance winning the ironman would be worth several million dollars. Ignore the prize money and think of how much getting back in the public eye would mean in terms of endorsement deals. Given that very few endorsement deals are made public, I have no way of telling how many triathletes are making a good living at it.

My point is why is there no outrage that we're putting the money in there at all, though?  Sure, I hear your point that we've spent it, might as well let them do their jobs.  Which is fine, since cutting off USADA funding isn't going to stop *this* investigation (doing that kind of thing takes time...lots of it).  But why do we keep this funding going?

As for what Lance winning Ironman is worth, like I said, it's worth more to Ironman than it is to Lance.  His Nike deal isn't going away any time soon no matter what comes out of this doping thing, and he's got plenty of other stuff going on (I mean he's part owner of Trek, IIRC, as well as holds a stake in a lot of the products he "endorses" now...smart business, since you can't stop endorsing your freakin' owner).

And there's no guarantee he'll win the championship if allowed to compete.  Hell, he hasn't even proven he can win *any* full distance IM, let alone Kona.  He's won a HIM and done very well in a few others, that's it.

--Donnie

[VoidOfEnigmas]

Originally Posted by djbarnes

My point is why is there no outrage that we're putting the money in there at all, though?  Sure, I hear your point that we've spent it, might as well let them do their jobs.  Which is fine, since cutting off USADA funding isn't going to stop *this* investigation (doing that kind of thing takes time...lots of it).  But why do we keep this funding going?

As for what Lance winning Ironman is worth, like I said, it's worth more to Ironman than it is to Lance.  His Nike deal isn't going away any time soon no matter what comes out of this doping thing, and he's got plenty of other stuff going on (I mean he's part owner of Trek, IIRC, as well as holds a stake in a lot of the products he "endorses" now...smart business, since you can't stop endorsing your freakin' owner).

And there's no guarantee he'll win the championship if allowed to compete.  Hell, he hasn't even proven he can win *any* full distance IM, let alone Kona.  He's won a HIM and done very well in a few others, that's it.

--Donnie

Dont understand it either, there's no proof he cheated and all they've done is waste a bunch of money failing to prove it because someones got a bug up their butt. Baseball was the same thing they spent half a billion dollars to tell us that buncha players juiced. WELL DUH

[djbarnes]

Originally Posted by VoidOfEnigmas

Dont understand it either, there's no proof he cheated and all they've done is waste a bunch of money failing to prove it because someones got a bug up their butt. Baseball was the same thing they spent half a billion dollars to tell us that buncha players juiced. WELL DUH

Well, and worst of all with baseball is that they didn't have any proof anyone did anything illegal, they were basically just chasing guys for perjury!  Millions spent chasing people for perjury.  *sigh*

--Donnie

[x129]

Using and possessing steroids was and is illegal. It may have not have been the rules of baseball. So in theory as long as Sammy did his juicing in the DR, it was ok. Look on the bright side. When all those congressman were grandstanding on tv, they were too busy to mess up the country.

If there is no proof that Lance cheat, he doesn't have to worry about this.  There is enough "proof" (questionable blood work from 2009+2010 and the testimony of the people involved) for an investigation. Now if it is enough for a conviction (and I have no idea what level the USADA needs to ban someone) has yet to be determined. Until all that stuff is published we are basically guessing to how strong the case is.

Originally Posted by djbarnes

Well, and worst of all with baseball is that they didn't have any proof anyone did anything illegal, they were basically just chasing guys for perjury!  Millions spent chasing people for perjury.  *sigh*

--Donnie

[newtogolf]

Something went wrong with the Clemons trial, either the DA was given orders to throw the case at the last minute or something fell apart because there's no way they should have lost that case.  The fact McNamee wasn't prepped for questioning, they failed to call key witnesses that could testify they saw Clemons get injected and the Senior DA didn't handle closing arguments leads me to think they didn't want to win, or had done something they didn't want the public to know about.  It was a complete waste of taxpayer money.

As for Armstrong, it's another waste of money.  I don't subscribe to "they get the budget allocation so they might as well spend it" thought process.  The budget isn't allocated to pursue frivilous accusations about sports figures who pose no threat to society.

Originally Posted by djbarnes

Well, and worst of all with baseball is that they didn't have any proof anyone did anything illegal, they were basically just chasing guys for perjury!  Millions spent chasing people for perjury.  *sigh*

--Donnie

[djbarnes]

Originally Posted by x129

Using and possessing steroids was and is illegal. It may have not have been the rules of baseball. So in theory as long as Sammy did his juicing in the DR, it was ok. Look on the bright side. When all those congressman were grandstanding on tv, they were too busy to mess up the country.

If there is no proof that Lance cheat, he doesn't have to worry about this.  There is enough "proof" (questionable blood work from 2009+2010 and the testimony of the people involved) for an investigation. Now if it is enough for a conviction (and I have no idea what level the USADA needs to ban someone) has yet to be determined. Until all that stuff is published we are basically guessing to how strong the case is.

Depends...at least some of these guys were using steroids legally via doctor prescriptions.  Now, those doctors may have been doing something unethical and/or illegal by prescribing things that weren't medically necessary, but that's a different animal to pursue entirely.

But even if they were all acquiring and using the stuff illegally, the point here is that nobody was trying to go after *that*, since it's all minor on the grand scheme of "drug use" and the penalties that would be involved, yet perjury was somehow bigger.  Which means, IMHO, it was all a big waste of time.

It seems like the big change in the Lance situation is far more people willing to state they saw Lance do illegal stuff.  That's because they saw all the Bonds and Clemens kind of crap, so they apparently were more forthcoming with info for the feds.  Then the feds still didn't think they had much of a case, but they were allowed to turn all that info over to the USADA.  So now all those guys are on record, so apparently the USADA feels like they've got enough to go after Lance again.  So while I don't think there's hard evidence in the samples that he did anything wrong, the samples were "sufficiently good" that with corroborating first person accounts, it could explain why his blood was always right on the edge of acceptable levels.

Which is still dumb.  Because not only were there no tests for some of this stuff, there are still not tests for some things. You can over-do your altitude tent training and get high enough levels of some things that you're "illegal" for competition because it's been defined that way.  Why?  Because there are drugs that will boost those things that aren't detectable, so they just defined a range that's basically impossible to achieve naturally.  So many of the guys use the altitude tents to get those things right to the top of the range.  But there are other things that you can't do with an altitude tent but could just be a genetic freak and be on that edge, too, and either that's Lance's blood -or- he was doping to that edge.  But if you can't detect it in a test conclusively and you have some former teammates saying he did it with a syringe and not naturally, who you gonna believe?  I think the USADA can just choose to believe the witnesses and call it a day...it's not a "due process" kind of situation.

--Donnie

[djbarnes]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Something went wrong with the Clemons trial, either the DA was given orders to throw the case at the last minute or something fell apart because there's no way they should have lost that case.  The fact McNamee wasn't prepped for questioning, they failed to call key witnesses that could testify they saw Clemons get injected and the Senior DA didn't handle closing arguments leads me to think they didn't want to win, or had done something they didn't want the public to know about.  It was a complete waste of taxpayer money.

As for Armstrong, it's another waste of money.  I don't subscribe to "they get the budget allocation so they might as well spend it" thought process.  The budget isn't allocated to pursue frivilous accusations about sports figures who pose no threat to society.

I agree with you on all of it.  The Clemens trial was going so damned well for the prosecution and it's just so damned obvious the dude did it and lied about it.  Then it fell apart THAT badly?!?  Nah, something was up there.

--Donnie

[Gresh24]

What would the motive be for the prosecution/DA to 'throw' the Clemens case or what theory is behind why 'something had to happen there'?   I didn't follow the case, but it seemed to me the evidence was pretty circumstantial.

[djbarnes]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

What would the motive be for the prosecution/DA to 'throw' the Clemens case or what theory is behind why 'something had to happen there'?   I didn't follow the case, but it seemed to me the evidence was pretty circumstantial.

You mean apart from McNamee saying he injected Clemens himself?  Clemens only defense for that was that if it was illegal stuff, he didn't know that, but come on...it's just not normal to need to inject ANYTHING as an athlete that isn't a controlled substance.

--Donnie

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by djbarnes

You mean apart from McNamee saying he injected Clemens himself?  Clemens only defense for that was that if it was illegal stuff, he didn't know that, but come on...it's just not normal to need to inject ANYTHING as an athlete that isn't a controlled substance.

--Donnie

A lot of things are said in court that are determined to not be credible - your word against mine isn't strong evidence, especially with McNamee's spotted past.  Btw, athletes get many injections that aren't illegal substances.

[djbarnes]

Originally Posted by Gresh24

A lot of things are said in court that are determined to not be credible - your word against mine isn't strong evidence, especially with McNamee's spotted past.  Btw, athletes get many injections that aren't illegal substances.

I agree about his spotty past, but there aren't many reasons why he'd lie under oath about this, either.  And no, athlete's do NOT get many injections outside of a doctor's office, anyway.  Especially not from some guy with a little black bag in a hotel room who isn't any kind of doctor.

--Donnie

[newtogolf]

First let me state that I think the whole Clemons witch hunt was a great waste of taxpayer money.  I personally don't care if he used steroids, or even if he lied about using them during the MLB hearings.  With regards to the evidence,

• Clemons demanded that McNamee be his personal trainer and that he be allowed in the Yankees clubhouse.
• Pettite testified that he used HGH at Clemons suggestion and introduction to McNamee
• McNamee had old syringes he'd used to inject steroids into Clemons that tested postive for Clemons DNA.
• Others had witnessed Clemons getting injected by McNamee (but were not called as witnesses)
• McNamee had provided Clemons wife HGH and was asked by Clemon to inject his wife.

McNamee is not a model citizen, but the rest of the evidence combined with his testimony should have been sufficient to find Clemons guilty.  Experts who attended the trials stated the DA did not appear to make their best effort especially given the extra time they had to prepare after the first trial resulted in a mis-trial.  The experts pointed to very poor witness prep of Pettite and McNamee, failure on their part of object to certain statements and accusations made by the defense, and a very poor closing argument given by the 3rd or 4th best lawyer the DA's office had available to give it when the lead would be the one who traditionally does the closing.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

What would the motive be for the prosecution/DA to 'throw' the Clemens case or what theory is behind why 'something had to happen there'?   I didn't follow the case, but it seemed to me the evidence was pretty circumstantial.

[mdl]

I don't think you even need to know about his tests to know the chances that he wasn't a doper are approximately 0.  Have you ever read anything by anyone who's been involved in pro cycling over the past 30 years?  EVERYONE dopes.  When more modern PEDs really took off in cycling, the guys among the elite who refused to start doping were suddenly 100% irrelevant.  Literally just got left in the dust and were never even close to a threat to win any major event again.  If you win in pro cycling, it means you dope.  Pure and simple.  Just like no one's capable of hitting 74 homers in a season through natural strength training and recovery abilities, no one's capable of beating dozens of elite cyclists who all dope through natural training.

[x129]

Its sports. There is never a threat to society. As far as it being frivolous, that is definitely an opinion. There are a lot cases that some people consider frivolous that other consider serious breaches of justice. See Treyvon Martin for a more serious example of this. Is it a frivolous case where Zimmerman clearly acted in self defense or justice of catching a murderer. In this case is it frivolous case of prosecuting an innocent man or justice of catching one of the biggest drug cheats in sports?

One thing to remember in all this is that there are different types of cases going on. The perjury ones are criminal cases. The USADA are more like (but not exactly) civil ones. The burden of evidence and the admitability of evidence differences significantly.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Something went wrong with the Clemons trial, either the DA was given orders to throw the case at the last minute or something fell apart because there's no way they should have lost that case.  The fact McNamee wasn't prepped for questioning, they failed to call key witnesses that could testify they saw Clemons get injected and the Senior DA didn't handle closing arguments leads me to think they didn't want to win, or had done something they didn't want the public to know about.  It was a complete waste of taxpayer money.

As for Armstrong, it's another waste of money.  I don't subscribe to "they get the budget allocation so they might as well spend it" thought process.  The budget isn't allocated to pursue frivilous accusations about sports figures who pose no threat to society.

[newtogolf]

That's a big reach, comparing professional cycling PED use to murder.  I'm not about to argue the details or the Zimmerman case, but it certainly is more relevant to society than a professional cyclist winning races over 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by x129

Its sports. There is never a threat to society. As far as it being frivolous, that is definitely an opinion. There are a lot cases that some people consider frivolous that other consider serious breaches of justice. See Treyvon Martin for a more serious example of this. Is it a frivolous case where Zimmerman clearly acted in self defense or justice of catching a murderer. In this case is it frivolous case of prosecuting an innocent man or justice of catching one of the biggest drug cheats in sports?

One thing to remember in all this is that there are different types of cases going on. The perjury ones are criminal cases. The USADA are more like (but not exactly) civil ones. The burden of evidence and the admitability of evidence differences significantly.

[x129]

I never compared PEDs to murder and explicitly mentioned that case was more serious than sports. There are still people who think the case frivolous and a witch hunt. Other people disagree . You can pick any of a zillion other cases.  Is the McDonald case where the lady spilled coffee? Is it frivolous because she spilled coffee on her self or serious because McDonalds had already had 700 previous cases and they were serving coffee at a dangerous level in order to save money? Should my tax dollars go to pay for those type of lawsuits?

Originally Posted by newtogolf

That's a big reach, comparing professional cycling PED use to murder.  I'm not about to argue the details or the Zimmerman case, but it certainly is more relevant to society than a professional cyclist winning races over 10 years ago.

[Gresh24]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

First let me state that I think the whole Clemons witch hunt was a great waste of taxpayer money.  I personally don't care if he used steroids, or even if he lied about using them during the MLB hearings.  With regards to the evidence,

Clemons demanded that McNamee be his personal trainer and that he be allowed in the Yankees clubhouse.

Pettite testified that he used HGH at Clemons suggestion and introduction to McNamee

McNamee had old syringes he'd used to inject steroids into Clemons that tested postive for Clemons DNA.

Others had witnessed Clemons getting injected by McNamee (but were not called as witnesses)

McNamee had provided Clemons wife HGH and was asked by Clemon to inject his wife.

McNamee is not a model citizen, but the rest of the evidence combined with his testimony should have been sufficient to find Clemons guilty.  Experts who attended the trials stated the DA did not appear to make their best effort especially given the extra time they had to prepare after the first trial resulted in a mis-trial.  The experts pointed to very poor witness prep of Pettite and McNamee, failure on their part of object to certain statements and accusations made by the defense, and a very poor closing argument given by the 3rd or 4th best lawyer the DA's office had available to give it when the lead would be the one who traditionally does the closing.

Which is it?  First you say the evidence is sufficient, then you say they didn't do enough.  Well, if it was sufficient as you say, then it isn't the DA's fault.

And you still didn't aswer my question - Why would they 'throw' the case?

[newtogolf]

The DA IMO had sufficient evidence, why they didn't present it all and why the lead DA didn't handle the closing arguments isn't something I'm privileged to.  The witnesses and trial prep was poor, not just my opinion but of others as well.  I have no idea why they threw the case, maybe it was political, not good during an election year to pursue a MLB legend and have government in private sector?  Most of the opinions I read felt the DA had a case they should have won, why that didn't happen we might never know.

Originally Posted by Gresh24

Which is it?  First you say the evidence is sufficient, then you say they didn't do enough.  Well, if it was sufficient as you say, then it isn't the DA's fault.

And you still didn't aswer my question - Why would they 'throw' the case?