Lance - what's going to happen?

tailwindhome

So what happens next?

I was going to add a poll, I may come back to do that, but I've realised I'm not sure what the possible outcomes from the USADA action are

Can someone enlighten.

speshsteve

absolutely nothing, nadda, zilch. They won't get him, just maybe make his life a little more difficult and stop him doing tri.

Tusher

He'll be found guilty by USADA, banned from competing for two years, ASO will hum and haw, but finally decide that it's not worth stripping him of his 7 Tour wins, as they haven't a hope of deciding who to award them to, and he'll quietly vanish, only to appear on an Oprey show in 20 years time still protesting his innocence.

Bruyneel is finished. Radioshack-Nissan Three Names is doomed.

I would very much like Pat McQuaid to be brought down as well, but he's too slippery a character.

iainf72

The 5 names will get charged with doping offenses (they've not been charged yet)

Lance may choose not to contest the case, however, I expect they will all get life time bans or way more than 2 years.Bruyneel will just go away and the doctors will "stop" working with cyclists. ie, just do consultancy on the side with no official title. Much like the Myth does now.

mididoctors

I don't know

tailwindhome

iainf72 wrote:

charged with doping offenses (they've not been charged yet)

Pretend I know nothing (I can't be the only one in that particular boat)

What powers do the USADA have and where do they draw there authority from?

What does charge mean in this context? We're not talking criminal charges here?

What's the USADA process? Have they been 'investigating' and 'testing'?

Do they have the power to subpoena (sp?) - if Lance says "Screw you" what can they do?

What weight of evidence do they need before 'charging' Lance?

Then what's happens? What can they do?

LangerDan

LA will walk on a technicality.

Some minor players will be thrown under the bus.

Ferrari will be done by the Italian authorities for non-declaration of an additional $465,000 of income.

Beatmaker

I think it will dent Lance's aspirations of becoming the President of America.

No_Ta_Doctor

Pretty much like Ian says.

The doping conspiracy will be upheld, the cover up will be unproven, so no change at the UCI.

Except that those that have faced legal action in the past may come sniffing after damages. There will be questions about whether those that get done have perjured themselves previously.

The doctors will move into other sports - one is already in tennis.

Ferrari will get done by the Italians.

The names of the other riders will either become public knowledge. A well liked DS of a clean team will have to defend his position, though will be backed by the team's sponsors and possibly sainted afterwards. The others will write books, if they haven't already.

The general public will shrug and say "I told you so" and have no faith in the cleanliness of cycling.

Cycling fans will continue to see a syringe round every corner, no-one will ever be able to ride well without someone pointing a suspicious finger at them.

More teams will join the "clean team" revolution, each seeking to outdo the next in their transparency. They will eventually be at the point where they test their riders' blood twice weekly, at a WADA accredited lab, with the results fed straight into the bio passport.

Some teams will attempt to use the lack of faith in the UCI as a springboard to starting a new race calendar / breakaway system of some sort, but this will really be driven by financial considerations. The UCI will get nervous and make a load of concessions to teams about almost everything, and the end result will be business as usual.

When the "US Postal, an insider's story" books start to come out a load more new revelations will be made, until even tenth place in a 99-06 GT is too high up to find a clean rider. The Lantern Rouges will accept the TdF titles, because even though they were doped they weren't trying to win.

Travis T. Tygart will get a spot on some talkshows and will later go on to become the first anti-doping agent in space. He will become a celebrated b-list celebrity, and eventually fall prey to all the usual b-list celeb vices. He will be busted at home with a few grams of coke and some call-girls. Born again Christian rebranding will ensue, and he will eventually become governor of a mid-west state. Before being busted again, for the same.

Germany will beat Spain 3-1 in the European Championship final, Wiggins will win the TdF and the Olympic TT, then go off the rails celebrating, culminating in driving a Vespa off the Blackpool pier. Cavendish will narrowly miss out on the TdF green jersey, but surprise everyone by attacking on Box Hill and soloing to victory in London in the Olympic RR.

This weeks lotterly numbers are: 32, 16, 8, 4, 64, 128 and 256. The bonus ball is 2.

iainf72

There will also be a musky smell around Bernie, and Livestrong bands will overtake nuclear waste as the most difficult thins to get rid of safely.

ratsbeyfus

I'm guessing he'll eventually embed himself in the collective conscience somewhere in the murky void that exists between Mel Gibson and Michael Barrymore. He'll probably claim to be bankrupt at some point, but will somehow still drive around in a great big MPV making a shed load of money on the pro-celeb golfing tour. He'll ostentatiously smoke cigars and get a hairy paunch which is poorly-hidden by a variety of ill-fitting Hawaiian shirts. His skin will start to take on the sheen of an old brown Brooks saddle, and those dead shark-like eyes will sink deeper into their sockets. He'll get caught in a motel room with his chinos down by his ankles, surrounded by crack pipes and the 19 year old daughter of a TV preacher. The LAPD mugshot will be BB's new avatar.

It's pretty obvious when you think about it.

No_Ta_Doctor

iainf72 wrote:

There will also be a musky smell around Bernie, and Livestrong bands will overtake nuclear waste as the most difficult thins to get rid of safely.

Nike will launch a range of eco-friendly 100% recycled bike accessories that are only available in yellow.

No_Ta_Doctor

ratsbeyfus wrote:

I'm guessing he'll eventually embed himself in the collective conscience somewhere in the murky void that exists between Mel Gibson and Michael Barrymore. He'll probably claim to be bankrupt at some point, but will somehow still drive around in a great big MPV making a shed load of money on the pro-celeb golfing tour. He'll ostentatiously smoke cigars and get a hairy paunch which is poorly-hidden by a variety of ill-fitting Hawaiian shirts. His skin will start to take on the sheen of an old brown Brooks saddle, and those dead shark-like eyes will sink deeper into their sockets. He'll get caught in a motel room with his chinos down by his ankles, surrounded by crack pipes and the 19 year old daughter of a TV preacher. The LAPD mugshot will be BB's new avatar.

It's pretty obvious when you think about it.

I seriously hope you're talking about LA and not BB there.

No_Ta_Doctor

TailWindHome wrote:

What powers do the USADA have and where do they draw there authority from?

What does charge mean in this context? We're not talking criminal charges here?

What's the USADA process? Have they been 'investigating' and 'testing'?

Do they have the power to subpoena (sp?) - if Lance says "Screw you" what can they do?

What weight of evidence do they need before 'charging' Lance?

Then what's happens? What can they do?

The USADA are mandated to do all the anti-doping stuff, their authority comes from them being the government sanctioned body to do this (though they are a non-governmental org). As such they enforce and abide by WADA regulations. Any sporting body that signs up for the olympics has to conform to the WADA regulations, overseen/enforced by USADA.

They can't bring criminal charges, they deal strictly with doping violations.

Process is a little hazy. They've been investigating, they have access to relevant test results, they do their own testing as well (though don't think they've been going round doing tests as part of this), they've been in contact with the Grand Jury investigations and may have sat in on some of it. They've sent a letter saying "we're thinking of charging you" based on the evidence they have. LA et all have about a week to respond. The responses will be put to a review board who decide whether to press charges. If they do that then the charges will be heard by a panel of independent arbitrators - one chosen by defendants, one chosen by USADA, the third chosen by the other two.

That board can call witnesses etc.

They can subpoeana.

Not entirely sure on the weight of evidence issue. As I understand it's a little lower than in a court of criminal law. Not entirely sure where burden of proof rests.

takethehighroad

Paul Kimmage will be the smuggest man in Western Europe

Tusher

TakeTheHighRoad wrote:

Paul Kimmage will be the smuggest man in Western Europe

Paul Kimmage is the smuggest man in Western Europe.

thegibdog

It will drag on and on and, when we finally get a conclusion, everyone apart from BikingBernie will be too worn out by it to care any more.

RichN95.

thegibdog wrote:

It will drag on and on and, when we finally get a conclusion, everyone apart from BikingBernie will be too worn out by it to care any more.

Some of us got to that point years ago.

As long as Bruyneel loses his job (something that might have happened anyway) I don't give a toss what happens.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

thegibdog wrote:

It will drag on and on and, when we finally get a conclusion, everyone apart from BikingBernie will be too worn out by it to care any more.

Some of us got to that point years ago.

As long as Bruyneel loses his job (something that might have happened anyway) I don't give a toss what happens.

I'd quite like the doctors thoroughly exposed as well. Not that a lifetime's ban from working with cyclists seems to actually stop them....

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'd quite like the doctors thoroughly exposed as well. Not that a lifetime's ban from working with cyclists seems to actually stop them....

Exactly. And as you've mentioned earlier, they're most likely buggering off to other sports anyway.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'd quite like the doctors thoroughly exposed as well. Not that a lifetime's ban from working with cyclists seems to actually stop them....

Exactly. And as you've mentioned earlier, they're most likely buggering off to other sports anyway.

You're not suggesting anyone accused here is working with, oh, I don't know, a big name tennis player, are you?

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

You're not suggesting anyone accused here is working with, oh, I don't know, a big name tennis player, are you?

I don't know any specifics - I've barely read any of this Armstrong stuff. And I know little about tennis (although I know a thing or two about one player who got cleared of a coke charge).

All I know is, if I was a doping doctor, there are plenty of sports I'd be looking at before cycling these days.

afx237vi

Is it a lady who did quite well last month and has a name that sounds like this? http://youtu.be/DCCuOLqwZv8?t=14s

shinyhelmut

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'd quite like the doctors thoroughly exposed as well. Not that a lifetime's ban from working with cyclists seems to actually stop them....

Exactly. And as you've mentioned earlier, they're most likely buggering off to other sports anyway.

But that'll be ok as long as its a sport without a doping problem

RichN95.

ShinyHelmut wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I'd quite like the doctors thoroughly exposed as well. Not that a lifetime's ban from working with cyclists seems to actually stop them....

Exactly. And as you've mentioned earlier, they're most likely buggering off to other sports anyway.

But that'll be ok as long as its a sport without a doping problem

Oh, there's plenty of those. A lot of sports are so clean that there's no real need for proper testing.

dave_1

after USADA convict him, if he appeals, then is it under oath? I think he will just get a ban lasting longer than Ricco.

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

after USADA convict him, if he appeals, then is it under oath? I think he will just get a ban lasting longer than Ricco.

If USADA get him both on doping himself AND on some part of trafficking then he can expect a lifetime ban, I reckon.
If he appeals then it will probably have to be on a technicality (10 riders' + team employees testimony really is quite a lot of eyewitness evidence). So if it wet all the way to CAS and they let him slip we'd probably end up doing it all again under a different agency.
Cue Italian wiretap evidence V Ferrari in their criminal case

dave_1

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

after USADA convict him, if he appeals, then is it under oath? I think he will just get a ban lasting longer than Ricco.

If USADA get him both on doping himself AND on some part of trafficking then he can expect a lifetime ban, I reckon.
If he appeals then it will probably have to be on a technicality (10 riders' + team employees testimony really is quite a lot of eyewitness evidence). So if it wet all the way to CAS and they let him slip we'd probably end up doing it all again under a different agency.
Cue Italian wiretap evidence V Ferrari in their criminal case

I reckon he'll let them take his 7 TDFs rather than go under oath as he will lie and go to prison for years. Is it under oath at CAS or only in the USA hearing?

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

after USADA convict him, if he appeals, then is it under oath? I think he will just get a ban lasting longer than Ricco.

If USADA get him both on doping himself AND on some part of trafficking then he can expect a lifetime ban, I reckon.
If he appeals then it will probably have to be on a technicality (10 riders' + team employees testimony really is quite a lot of eyewitness evidence). So if it wet all the way to CAS and they let him slip we'd probably end up doing it all again under a different agency.
Cue Italian wiretap evidence V Ferrari in their criminal case

I reckon he'll let them take his 7 TDFs rather than go under oath as he will lie and go to prison for years. Is it under oath at CAS or only in the USA hearing?

I really don't know about CAS. But presumably he'd have had to lie under oath to USADA to get as far as CAS anyway, so probably irrelevant by that stage.

The interesting bit comes when his 2006 bonus comes under review. He went to court for that one, where it was decided it was irrelevant if he doped or not as the contract didn't stipulate he had to win it clean. But if it's stripped then they might be asking for their money back. And there's a definite question re perjury in the original case hanging in the air there.

dave_1

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

after USADA convict him, if he appeals, then is it under oath? I think he will just get a ban lasting longer than Ricco.

If USADA get him both on doping himself AND on some part of trafficking then he can expect a lifetime ban, I reckon.
If he appeals then it will probably have to be on a technicality (10 riders' + team employees testimony really is quite a lot of eyewitness evidence). So if it wet all the way to CAS and they let him slip we'd probably end up doing it all again under a different agency.
Cue Italian wiretap evidence V Ferrari in their criminal case

I reckon he'll let them take his 7 TDFs rather than go under oath as he will lie and go to prison for years. Is it under oath at CAS or only in the USA hearing?

I really don't know about CAS. But presumably he'd have had to lie under oath to USADA to get as far as CAS anyway, so probably irrelevant by that stage.

The interesting bit comes when his 2006 bonus comes under review. He went to court for that one, where it was decided it was irrelevant if he doped or not as the contract didn't stipulate he had to win it clean. But if it's stripped then they might be asking for their money back. And there's a definite question re perjury in the original case hanging in the air there.

I think when he appears in front of USADA he can deny it all as he is not under oath but if he appeals then he would trigger an under oath process. If he admits he doped, then maybe the feds will have him for perjury in the SCA case?

No_Ta_Doctor

I think he'd be under oath at the USADA hearing. It will be held by an independent arbitration board. They can subpoena, so I'm assuming they have a fairly firm legal standing, though they aren't a court of law (neither is CAS).