Armstrong in the clear
Comments
-
DaveyL wrote:I really must be missing something here. When this story was first reported, someone on here very sagely observed that someone was lying - either Armstrong, when he said he had permission from the tester to go and take a shower; or the tester, who allegedly reported that Armstrong went to take a shower without being given permission.
Now, if "the body [AFLD] has decided to take into consideration the athlete's written explanations and, in consequence, not to open a disciplinary procedure against him." does that mean Armstrong was telling the truth when he said he'd been given permission?
It certainly is a possibility, but, like Dennis says, we'll never know for sure."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
It does appear that Armstrong hates 'the French', often talking about’ The French' in a very general way when talking about the LNDD and so on. However, most French people couldn't care less about Armstrong (nor the Tour, or bike racing in general come to that) so it would be quite wrong to say that 'The French' hate Armstrong.dennisn wrote:Given Lances hatred of the French(or so everyone says)
and given the French hatred of Lance(or so everyone says), nothing would suprise me.0 -
The quote you give does not imply that the tester lied. Also, despite Armstrong's paranoid, Francophobic bleatings, this outcome was probably inevitable given WADA's rules on testing which do give a fair bit of leeway to a rider. For example:DaveyL wrote:"the body [AFLD] has decided to take into consideration the athlete's written explanations and, in consequence, not to open a disciplinary procedure against him." does that mean Armstrong was telling the truth when he said he'd been given permission?
The Code currently leaves some flexibility to ADOs as relates to missed tests, based upon varying circumstances encountered in different sports and countries. However, WADA’s Guideline for Athlete Whereabouts Information recommends that the relevant ADO should proceed with the result management process following three missed tests, or three recorded warnings for failure to provide whereabouts information, or a combination of failure to provide whereabouts information and missed tests, in a period of 18 months.0 -
In the initial reports of this story, it was claimed that a report was filed because Armstrong left the sight of the tester without the tester's permission. Armstrong claimed he had the tester's permission. Perhaps I am wrong but this is what it boiled down to, no?
Now, if they have dismissed this case after hearing his side of the story, i.e. "taken into consideration the athlete's written explanations", then what conclusions can we draw? If the tester was telling the truth, then Armstrong left his sight without permission. So why wouldn't they take some disciplinary action?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Because even in the case of missed tests WADA rules give a rider 'three chances' before the relevant body is expected to bring action, and given Armstrong's propaganda war against the AFLD they were certainly not going to take any action that Armstrong could portray as being draconian or failing to follow the spirit of WADA's rules?DaveyL wrote:If the tester was telling the truth, then Armstrong left his sight without permission. So why wouldn't they take some disciplinary action?0 -
I thought current opinion (before the outcome) was that it would not count as a missed test, as he had already made contact with the tester, and that it would be something rather more serious.
In any case, are you saying that technically it is a missed test against him but the AFLD have decided not to count it, because of LA's "propaganda war"? Or does he now have one strike against him?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I would say that the real issue was that he left the sight of the tester, contrary to WADA rules. This is something that both parties appear to agree on. As far as I know the tester doesn't even have the discretionary power to 'give permission' to a rider to leave their sight. Also the responsibility to stay with the tester rests on the rider, as Armstrong 'the most tested athlete on the planet' surely knew. From WADA's code:DaveyL wrote:In the initial reports of this story, it was claimed that a report was filed because Armstrong left the sight of the tester without the tester's permission. Armstrong claimed he had the tester's permission. Perhaps I am wrong but this is what it boiled down to, no?
Of the Athlete’s responsibilities, including the requirement to:
i. Remain within sight of the DCO/Chaperone at all times from the first moment of in-person notification by the DCO/Chaperone until the completion of the Sample collection procedure;
Given that the tester was highly experienced, and given what we know of Armstrong's attitude to 'The French' and so on, I feel we can take anything Armstrong says with a very large pinch of salt. After all, he is shameless in the way he spins everything to suit his own agenda, as with the way he tried to argue that he didn't chase Simeoni down. :roll:0 -
DaveyL wrote:In the initial reports of this story, it was claimed that a report was filed because Armstrong left the sight of the tester without the tester's permission. Armstrong claimed he had the tester's permission. Perhaps I am wrong but this is what it boiled down to, no?
Now, if they have dismissed this case after hearing his side of the story, i.e. "taken into consideration the athlete's written explanations", then what conclusions can we draw? If the tester was telling the truth, then Armstrong left his sight without permission. So why wouldn't they take some disciplinary action?
Probably because it's more trouble than it's worth.
What disciplinary action would a single infringement of the rules incur?
Lack of physical evidence.
I don't think you can draw any sort of conclusion from the fact that the French have laid the matter to rest, other than they aren't as puritanical as some believe."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Whether it counts as a 'missed test' or 'something more serious' I feel most would agree that Armstrong's tactics would have made it very hard for the AFLD to take things further, especially given that the test results were apparently negative.DaveyL wrote:I thought current opinion (before the outcome) was that it would not count as a missed test, as he had already made contact with the tester, and that it would be something rather more serious. In any case, are you saying that technically it is a missed test against him but the AFLD have decided not to count it, because of LA's "propaganda war"? Or does he now have one strike against him?0 -
Yes, the real issue is that he left the sight of the tester. If that is so serious, what could he have given in his explanation that means no action at all will be taken against him? Not even a "strike"?
And to return to the he said/she said, if the tester was experienced, why would he give Armstrong permission to leave his sight, as he ought to know he does not have the authority to to allow that? Either that or Armstrong lied.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
DaveyL wrote:
And to return to the he said/she said, if the tester was experienced, why would he give Armstrong permission to leave his sight, as he ought to know he does not have the authority to to allow that? Either that or Armstrong lied.
Bobby and Pierre have a comment on this in today's Cycling Report.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Ah well, you know what those french testers are like.....
Hair today and gone tomorrow. :P
Btw: Basso wins Trentino. Di Luca takes the tough, uphill finish.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
dennisn wrote:calvjones wrote:No doubt Lance has apologised via twitted for impugning the AFLDs integrity and professionalism?
Eh?
Oh.
Do you feel the need to have him apoligize to you?
Dennis Noward
No, Den, to the AFLD. Apologies if my grammar wasn't 100% clear :roll:___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
calvjones wrote:
In the recent Theo Bos video in which he takes down, or not, another rider, we actually have a video of what happened in this "event"(if you will). Now, half of the people
who responded to this blog wanted his head and the other half said "hey, no problem".
Well, give or take a few people either way. In any case, here you have a video of what happened and STILL people can't agree on what they saw. So, you ask me to believe
that you know exactly what happened in this "meeting"(for lack of a better word) between Lance and the AFLD. Maybe Lance apologised to AFLD, or maybe AFLD apologised to Lance, or maybe they both shook hands(like real human beings) and agreed
to a sort of "no harm done" type of thing. Maybe neither of them felt it was necessary to
inform you(or me) personally of any of this. It's none of your(or my) business, to say the least. Who do you think you are? Just because you're a sort of racing / doping "groupie"
doesn't mean you're INTITLED to know eveything about other peoples business.
Dennis Noward0 -
To be honest I'm pleased. It seems poor behaviour by Lance and Bruyneel but not sure it was really sanctionable (real word?).0
-
Does this mean that no rider now has to stay in the company of a tester. They can all go for a shower or whatever.0
-
dennisn wrote:calvjones wrote:
In the recent Theo Bos video in which he takes down, or not, another rider, we actually have a video of what happened in this "event"(if you will). Now, half of the people
who responded to this blog wanted his head and the other half said "hey, no problem".
Well, give or take a few people either way. In any case, here you have a video of what happened and STILL people can't agree on what they saw. So, you ask me to believe
that you know exactly what happened in this "meeting"(for lack of a better word) between Lance and the AFLD. Maybe Lance apologised to AFLD, or maybe AFLD apologised to Lance, or maybe they both shook hands(like real human beings) and agreed
to a sort of "no harm done" type of thing. Maybe neither of them felt it was necessary to
inform you(or me) personally of any of this. It's none of your(or my) business, to say the least. Who do you think you are? Just because you're a sort of racing / doping "groupie"
doesn't mean you're INTITLED to know eveything about other peoples business.
Dennis Noward
ENTITLED Den, unless that's US spelling
And for someone who has kissed and made up with AFLD, he sure has kicked them in the balls in the press, hmmm?
I suspect if you examine our relative posting frequency in doping-related topics, we'll get a good idea which of us is the 'doping groupie'/___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
calvjones wrote:dennisn wrote:calvjones wrote:
In the recent Theo Bos video in which he takes down, or not, another rider, we actually have a video of what happened in this "event"(if you will). Now, half of the people
who responded to this blog wanted his head and the other half said "hey, no problem".
Well, give or take a few people either way. In any case, here you have a video of what happened and STILL people can't agree on what they saw. So, you ask me to believe
that you know exactly what happened in this "meeting"(for lack of a better word) between Lance and the AFLD. Maybe Lance apologised to AFLD, or maybe AFLD apologised to Lance, or maybe they both shook hands(like real human beings) and agreed
to a sort of "no harm done" type of thing. Maybe neither of them felt it was necessary to
inform you(or me) personally of any of this. It's none of your(or my) business, to say the least. Who do you think you are? Just because you're a sort of racing / doping "groupie"
doesn't mean you're INTITLED to know eveything about other peoples business.
Dennis Noward
ENTITLED Den, unless that's US spelling
And for someone who has kissed and made up with AFLD, he sure has kicked them in the balls in the press, hmmm?
I suspect if you examine our relative posting frequency in doping-related topics, we'll get a good idea which of us is the 'doping groupie'/
Ya got me on the spelling. :oops: :oops:
I still say that neither you nor anyone else knows exactly what "went down" that fateful
day. OK, Lance, Lances boss, and the AFLD guy know but I'm betting that even if you talked to them you'd get three different answers. How could anyone REALLY know?
Oh wait, you could read all about it on the Internet. OK, I see now. It's like a light coming on in my head. The infallible Internet. Home of the REAL truth about EVERYTHING. Never wrong or misleading. Sorry, just couldn't resist. Come to think of it I'm sure
that Lances life will soon be a major motion picture and then we'll ALL know everything for sure.
Dennis Noward0
