The NY Times is reporting that they interviewed one of Lance Armstrong's former teammates who corroborated the story that Floyd Landis is telling about rampant doping on the U.S. Postal team under Lance's encouragement. Here is the key quote from the article:
A former teammate of Armstrong said in a telephone interview Wednesday that he had spoken with investigators. He said he detailed some of his own drug use, as well as the widespread cheating that he said went on as part of the Postal Service team — all of which he said was done with Armstrong’s knowledge and encouragement.The NY Times article is also reporting that others who are privy to the details of Jeffrey Novitzky's investigation have revealed that additional US Postal team members are corroborating Floyd's story. According to the article "prosecutors and investigators have more than Landis’s account to go on, according to the two people with knowledge of the investigation."
As I've partially detailed previously in this blog, there is a fairly long list of others who accused Lance of doping before Landis did. Even with this long list, many people refuse to believe Lance is guilty. In my mind, whether or not Lance is ever proven in a court of law or otherwise to be guilty of doping, we all ought to decide whether these allegations are the proverbial smoke that suggests "where there is smoke, there is fire" or is there another reasonable explanation. I explain below why we ought to make this decision. First, what other explanations are there?
Lance hired a high powered defense attorney (as described here) who is attempting to provide another explanation. The NY Times article states that Lance's attorney is saying that "any cyclists who claim that Armstrong doped were not telling the truth." The story goes that the investigators:
“want (other cyclists) to incriminate Lance Armstrong and that’s my concern,” Daly said, ... “To the extent that there’s anyone besides Floyd Landis saying things, the bottom line is, if you take away the soap opera and look at the scientific evidence, there is nothing.”So what does this mean? This is Lance's best alternative to the proverbial smoke leading to a fire. The long list of people who have accused Lance including former teammates and friends, all in addition to Floyd Landis (who is revealing his own character flaws by telling his story) are all lying. Why? That's the question Lance can't answer.
The only thing I can imagine to answer the "why" question is that all these people are evil and out to get Lance. They no longer consider him a friend, and, in fact, they view him as an enemy. Why? Hate. So much hate that they are willing to lie about him and destroy all the good things he stands for. They probably don't want Lance to fight cancer any more. As you can see, any potential answer to the "why" question is absurd!
What about the point that Lance's attorney made that since there is no scientific evidence supporting these claims, Lance must be innocent? Apparently, the stories from former teammates and other cyclists about how they were able to get around the tests are also part of the conspiracy.
In the end, what I think Lance's attorney is revealing is that Lance is quickly running out of ways to deflect reasonable suspicion. In other words, a jury might find the evidence to be sufficient to remove any reasonable doubt. Anyone who is a reasonable thinker and isn't biased by years of wanting to believe Lance was a miracle probably concluded already that there is no way Lance could have won seven titles against competitors who were doping without also cheating. All the other stories are just corroborating what many people knew for some time.
Even so, the truth is sometimes hard to face. I personally have been slow to take down my many Lance Armstrong posters in my bike room and his calendars in my office. However, they are all down now.
When my wife tried to give my Lance Armstrong books away, I told her I wanted to keep them for now. I was inspired by those books. I was also inspired by the DVD's I bought that document Lance's seven wins. I confess that I haven't decided what to do with those yet.
In the end, I now know that I was inspired by a fraudster. That is the reason we all ought to decide if the smoke leads to a fire or not. If we don't then we risk being duped by a conman. Do you want to believe a fairy tale? If so, you can start singing "Santa Claus is coming to town."
So is this why I couldn't keep up with the Posties in the late 90's. I sure tried at several top national caliber races.
ReplyDeleteCam, without their EPO, HgH, and testosterone, you would have crushed them all!
ReplyDeleteI am certainly no Lance fan, and have long thought that he was a doper ... I think his current defense smacks of "me think thou dost protest too much"; when he'd be better off saying "we said what we had to say, and we're not going to say anymore" ... otherwise, he's really in a no win situation.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I still enjoy watching his performances in the 1990s; doped or not, that was some exciting racing.
And, there is no doubt that Livestrong has done a lot of good for a lot of people.
Do I wish that Floyd would go away? No; I'm glad a light is finally being shined on the doping practices in cycling in the United States (and by US teams in Europe).
Do I fear for the future of the sport, especially from a sponsorship standpoint? To some extent, yes I do ... but cycling will survive, just as Major League Baseball survived its own steroids and BALCO scandals.
Flahute: I agree with almost all of your comments. The one thing you said that I am not sure about is your comment about enjoying watching Lance race in the 1990's. I used to enjoy watching those races. However, knowing he was the boss in the peloton mafia and that he was cheating in order to accomplish his amazing feats puts a damper on my ability to enjoy watching those races.
ReplyDeleteMZ...Wow! You shot your own hero without waiting for or investigating all of the evidence. Before going any further, this is a must read: "Novitsky's Most Dangerous Game" by John Ramano (the link was too large to post) It’s one of many articles written that impeach Novitsky’s credibility and motives. The investigative information in the article appears accurate as I have researched it back to the original sources. I have no interest in the writer’s opinions. As someone who has been involved in legal matters for many years, the intent of this post is to demonstrate that the coin has two sides. Contrary to your conclusion, there are explanations that support Armstrong's claim of innocence. Guilty until proven innocent is not how the judicial system works. It is not at all unusual that a guy like Armstrong would have a lot of enemies. This is true for most high profile people.As a college student I had a job delivering to a well known university president.The hate mail that he received from around the world would blow your mind.Thirty years ago wasn't considered that big of a deal.Today,the FBI would be involved.
ReplyDeleteIn Armstrong's books many of his friends and associates describe his decision making style like that of a computer..."on or off" (quick decision & move on)and his view of people as "in or out" (you're in the group or you are not).His books reveal that he has banished former friends & associates from his life in an instant. This is certainly a perfect way to make a lot of enemies quickly.In his book Landis himself claims that strong arm tactics were used in an attempt to get him to implicate Armstrong for doping in exchange for leniency. Landis refused. Sure,Landis is not a real credible guy but knowing how USADA, WADA and federal prosecutors often operate I have little doubt this claim is accurate.Just like some cyclists cheat,some prosecutors violate the constitution and the law when they are on a mission. They are ruthless,ego driven & sometimes “don’t let the law get in their way when defending the law.” In a lifetime, most people are never confronted by the legal system and they are scared to death of lawsuits, judges, courtrooms, subpoenas and attorneys. There are no friends when subpoenas and prosecutors are involved. Most people are so afraid of the system that they would throw their children off a bridge (let alone a friend, acquaintance or enemy) if subpoenaed to testify. Prosecutors are experts as scaring the sh!t out of witnesses. People become terrified even if they have nothing to hide. It’s easier and safer to go with the flow when presented with the subtle insinuation that you may be next. I've seen it firsthand. It's a Stockholm Syndrome-like reaction. I have attended college football practices of some of the most highly regarded coaches in history. Some ran clean programs and some did not. Behind closed doors ALL of them were complete maniacs(most would say a$$hole$).I assure you that they make a lot of enemies with players (generally those who don't play)and assistant coaches (generally those who get fired). But in front of the media they are Hollywood actors. The best coaches and athletes are ruthless competitors and they have a lot of enemies. Regardless of the good outweighing the bad,their enemies would drag them down in a heartbeat and rejoice in their failure.
There are always two sides to any argument & we all deserve the presumption of innocence until proven guilty...even in the court of public opinion.
Edward: This isn’t about Novitzky. There was plenty of evidence before he started this investigation. The question we all need to come to grips with is when is there enough evidence to remove reasonable doubt. For example, OJ Simpson was a free man for many years but did anyone believe he was innocent?
ReplyDeleteAs I say in my post, you can either look at the evidence and conclude he is guilty or you can believe there is some sort of conspiracy that explains it all (i.e. Lance has tons of enemies who are all lying). You can choose the conspiracy theory explanation if you want. My other posts lay out enough evidence to write three books about it. I won’t review the evidence here but I will says that I agree with the conclusions about Lance found in the link you referenced. Apparently, the author of that post also believes Armstrong is a doper. Here is a quote from your link:
“Elite athletes using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) is pretty much anticlimactic news. … A more cogent investigation into cycling would be to find the athletes that don't use PEDs. That would be much easier. … The issue here really has nothing to do with whether or not Armstrong used PEDs. The likely story is that he, along with every other elite level athlete did/does use them.”
Unfortunately, I also agree with the conclusion that the author comes to when he says: “I'm sure that with what Armstrong has on the line with his image and stature, and the resources available to him, he played a very serious and very careful game and he covered his tracks well. No one, not even the tenacious, law bending, constitutional right violating, over zealous Novitzky is going to uncover them.”
In sum, I agree with the following conclusions in your link: Armstrong is guilty but Novitzky probably won’t be able to put him in jail. I don’t agree that this is reason not to pursue an investigation because I think the world needs to know what evidence there is that Lance is a fraud.
In the end, when all the evidence comes out and Lance still walks away with his million-dollar defense attorney, he will be like OJ Simpson was for many years: free but obviously guilty.
Thanks for the link, it makes my point very well.
MZ. Your sarcasm is unnecessary and unprofessional. It does not speak highly of you and diminishes the University you represent. If you have direct evidence then post it. Your rash judgements and sarcasm damages your credibility. This holds true irrespective of Armstrong's guilt or innocence. As a highly educated man how could you make a comment like "...I think the world needs to know what evidence there is that Lance is a fraud."? It would be entirely ethical and fair if you were to say "I think the world needs to know what evidence may exist that would substantiate fraud on the part of Lance Armstrong." People don’t have to be evil to hate someone. But, sometimes they are. O.J. Simpson was likely found not guilty in large part due to the hatred the African American community had for the LAPD. Yet,I wouldn’t call these people evil. However, years of pent up anger and hatred probably determined the outcome. I seriously doubt that most African Americans believed O.J. was innocent. I even question whether or not the majority of jurors believed he was innocent. But I do know that hatred is a much more powerful emotion than the belief in someone’s guilt. It’s also a more powerful emotion than telling the truth, preserving the good someone stands for or having concern about the fight for cancer. It's powerful enough for professors of auditing and fraud examination to throw professional standards out the window. Hate is so powerful that it has led to at least six attempts of genocide in the past 70 years.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that “this is not about Novitsky”. It’s in large part about Novitsky. He has an extremely questionable reputation and a lack of credibility. Based on your own reasoning he should be afforded no more credibility than Armstrong. Based on your profession, he should be held to a higher standard than Armstrong. That being said, why should you or anyone trust anything he's involved with? Novitsky knows that bringing down Armstrong won’t win or even help this battle. Further, he knows that it’s virtually impossible for him to bring Armstrong down. MOST IMPORTANTLY he knows his efforts won’t help the anti-doping cause and he has no interest in doing so. Ethics and credibility are the cornerstone to any investigation. All his latest efforts will do is expose him for the unethical, law breaking person he is. That’s generally the result with guys like Novitsky. He has no interest in the public good or the good of sports. He’s more concerned about his own ego and consumed by his hatred. Eliminating the use of PEDs is not on his radar. If our government and Novitsky were truly serious about this matter then the focus would be directed toward spending all of this time, money and effort on ADVANCING THE TECHNOLOGY TO DETECT DRUG USEAGE. It’s well known that the technology to detect significantly lags that to cheat. At the end of the day, Novitsky is driven by ego and hate. And there's plenty of evidence that impeaches his credibility as an investigator. Do you really trust Novitsky? Your life’s work is in fraud determination and prevention. Would you hire Novitsky to do this investigation based upon what you know about the man? If you were to investigate his background further do you think it is more or less likely that you would hire him? Is this the kind of person that you would even associate with? We both already know the answers. Consequently, why would you lend credibility to or trust such a man? Why wouldn't you suggest that he be replaced? As an expert you should have. Would you ever conduct an investigation by breaking the law? Before slinging sarcasm maybe you should have asked yourself some of these questions. In the end, investigators like Novitsky fuel the anger that leads to juries that let criminals walk. Just ask the LAPD.
Without a link, I made my point very well.
Edward, if your point is that you think Novitzky is unethical so we should not trust his investigation, so be it. You've made that point.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my point is that there is a ton of evidence (already posted on Fraudbytes) that suggests Lance used PEDs and Novitzky's investigation is not needed to come to this conclusion. You can review the posts labeled under "Lance Armstrong" and you will see what I'm talking about. You can also go to Wikipedia for much of the evidence.
As for "direct evidence" you will rarely find a smoking gun in fraud cases; Lance's investigation is no exception. Fraud investigators develop theories and I believe most objective fraud investigators would believe that there is a lot of strong evidence that Lance used illegal drugs during his career--i.e. plenty of smoke suggesting a fire exists. Because you don't find smoking guns in fraud cases, they typically hinge on circumstantial evidence such as testimony, documentation, and logical analyses.
In Lance's case we already have credible testimony of several former friends and teammates and other acquaintances. We also have something similar to documentation in the form of scientific tests that were thrown out on the basis of technicalities with some evidence suggesting Lance may have obtained favors to avoid scrutiny. Certainly, his undisputed payments to the regulators are at least suspicious. Even so, we probably won't find acceptable scientific tests on Lance but, rather, a lot of evidence suggesting that he had ways and means to conceal his doping from the tests.
Last we have evidence in the form of analysis. An analysis that can provide evidence in court in a traditional fraud case will show, for example, that if a person making $30,000 a year is spending $100,000 a year and he had a way to steal from a company then, barring he or she can provide a reasonable explanation for the additional $70,000, the person was probably stealing.
Similarly, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that Lance was probably using drugs since he could beat his competitors while they were doping with techniques known to boost performance by over 20%. However, if Lance could show that he is a such a freak of nature relative to Ivan Basso, Tyler Hamilton, Jan Ullrich and others that his genetics and work ethic alone gave him this edge then he could prove that his wins have merit. However, his performance in many races prior to his glory days and those since, including this year, suggest he is not that unusual genetically or otherwise.
Even so, I acknowledge that it is doubtful that a judge or jury will side against Lance Armstrong in a criminal case. However, they may be willing to say there is a preponderance of evidence in a civil proceeding. Even if that fails, I believe that the evidence posted on Fraudbytes makes a fairly strong case that he is either guilty or there is some (wild and unimaginable) conspiracy.
Thus, whatever Novitzky comes up with (and whatever a court of law decides) will not remove the cloud of smoke that is already hanging over his head and that points to a high likelihood of a fire burning below.
Edward, a few things: First, your comments reek of ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem). Second, I am not sure what you are interpreting as sarcasm--I didn't detect any sarcasm in Mark's comments. Third, Mark's whole point is that based on the information we currently have available to us, it seems like you would have to reach one of two conclusions: either Lance doped, or many individuals are conspiring against him. As I understand your comments, you are more inclined to believe the conspiracy theory (perhaps you are trying to give reasons why the conspiracy theory might not be so far-fetched), and Mark and I are more inclined to believe that Lance really did dope.
ReplyDeleteMZ and Aaron (1st of 2 part post)
ReplyDeleteMZ. I apologize for having misinterpreted your comments. I also apologize for the sarcastic tone of my response. Having read your latest post I accept that you had no intent of being sarcastic. I do feel that your latest post presents a much more professional tone and thoughtfully prepared argument. This also holds true for what Aaron had to say.
PEDs are a huge problem for the sport and very few professional riders are beyond suspicion. Sadly cheating has become an integral part of the sports culture. And with Armstrong there is a smoking gun. I have heard doping accusations from people who I consider to be credible for many years.
MZ, you brought up an interesting point that supports Armstrong's case when you said: "However, if Lance could show that he is a such a freak of nature relative to Ivan Basso, Tyler Hamilton, Jan Ullrich and others that his genetics and work ethic alone gave him this edge then he could prove that his wins have merit. However, his performance in many races prior to his glory days and those since, including this year, suggest he is not that unusual genetically or otherwise.
I believe the following provides a very good explanation to all of your points.
Armstrong trained extremely hard starting at a very early age. This training went beyond cycling as it included both running and swimming. He was quite good at the latter two sports. This led to him becoming a triathlete. In his early/mid teens, he posted times on the bicycle that were well ahead of all the best triathaletes of that era at the same age. According on one source his high level of training at such a young age most likely contributed to him developing an unusually large heart muscle (genetics may have also played a role). His heart is capable of pumping blood through his veins at a level significantly greater than most athletes. One source contends that it is also at a level that's statistically significant to other elite athletes. I'm not aware of any professional cyclist who ever competed at this level in both triathlon and cycling.
This is a noteworthy read:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26067.php There's tons of medical research available that supports the contention that Lance is a freak of nature. I've read that when tested at altitude his uptake of oxygen (VO2 Max) does not decline by any significant amount which is unusual.
There's data supporting that Armstrong's muscles do not build up lactic acid as quickly and expel it faster than other elite cyclists thus allowing for quicker recovery and maximal output for longer periods of time. To date, no scientific explanation exists for this phenomenon. He’s in a class of one.
During his bout with cancer his doctors believed that he no chance of survival. I've heard his oncologist say this in several interviews. This is contrary to what they told him. To give him hope they said he had a 40% chance of survival. He was in the most advanced stage of testicular cancer and the worst they had ever seen. It had matasticized from his testicals to his abdomen, lungs and brain. He had a dozen golf ball size tumors in his lungs. Brain surgery was required to remove two tumors. He lost 20% of his muscle mass. Let’s put the cancer aside for a moment. Ask any elite athlete if they believe they could lose 20% of their muscle mass due to cancer and come back to perform at the most elite level of their sport. I’ve asked some. They all have said no. Look at it another way. Even if Armstrong is the biggest doper in the history of professional cycling it still doesn’t explain his super human feat. The only thing that I believe can explain this is a combination of freaky genetics, a superior work ethic and a level of determination you and I will never understand. That's pretty amazing.
(continued on next post)
MZ - (2nd of two posts)
ReplyDeleteArmstrong before cancer:
Before testicular cancer Armstrong was quite muscular and heavier. He was considered perfectly built as a "classics" or "stage" rider but not considered someone who could ever win the Tour. Because he was big his power to weight ratio was too low for climbing mountains. Eddie Merx was one of many who said this about Armstrong. But, a strange irony of the testicular cancer is that Armstrong lost 20% of his muscle mass which resulted in a 7kg drop in body weight. But he didn't lose any power. His power to weight ratio increased a staggering 18%. A couple percent improvement is all it generally takes to go from being a contender to a Tour champion. He did win the world championships at the age of 21 and several stages of the Tour de France before contracting cancer. It is well known that Armstrong was not a very intelligent cyclist during his early years. He was impatient and believed he could outlast anyone. In cycling the race often goes to the smartest. It usually takes 6+ years to build the stamina and cycling skills to win the Tour de France. This translates into 27 to 29 years old. Armstrong’s early years were well above most.
Lance after retirement:
It's well known that the older you get the harder it is to recover from the grueling exertion needed to ride in a major tour. Armstrong had to lose about 5kg of muscle in the 12 months preceding his 2009 comeback. Otherwise his power to weight ratio would have been a joke. Of all the five time tour winners, Armstrong was the only one to win after the age of 32. This demonstrates the significant role the aging process plays in professional cycling. By his own admission he had lost his "nerve" for riding in the professional peloton. This is not unusual. Nonetheless, the guy finished on the podium. That’s impressive.
This year he clipped a pedal going 40mph and crashed. He’s lucky it didn’t put him out of the race. As someone pushing 40 years old you just can't recover from that type of crash. It’s hard enough to recover from each day’s ride. If Contador or Schleck had crashed like that the other would likely have won the Tour by a reasonable margin. There's only so much gas in the tank. It would have likely played a major role in a later stage. Twenty something Frank Scleck crashed and It put him out of the race. By the time Armstrong got up and reached the contenders he was "pegged". His race was over. Placing ahead of Contador in the prologue was impressive and I’m sure it caused some concern. All riders watch closely the results of the opening time trial or prologue. Not necessarily to see who wins but to see which contenders are in “tour” condition. If Armstrong had not crashed he most likely would have finished in the top ten and had a crack at the podium. It’s highly unlikely he could have stayed with AC and AS consistently in the mountains. After the crash he spent most of him time conserving energy to win a stage.
Armstrong is a freak of nature.
MZ and Aaron (1st of 2 posts)
ReplyDeleteMZ. I apologize for having misinterpreted your comments. I also apologize for the sarcastic tone of my response. Having read your latest post I accept that you had no intent of being sarcastic. I do feel that your latest post presents a much more professional tone and thoughtfully prepared argument. This also holds true for what Aaron had to say.
PEDs are a huge problem for the sport and very few professional riders are beyond suspicion. Sadly cheating has become an integral part of the sports culture. And with Armstrong there is a smoking gun. I have heard doping accusations from people who I consider to be credible for many years.
MZ, you brought up an interesting point that supports Armstrong's case when you said: "However, if Lance could show that he is a such a freak of nature relative to Ivan Basso, Tyler Hamilton, Jan Ullrich and others that his genetics and work ethic alone gave him this edge then he could prove that his wins have merit. However, his performance in many races prior to his glory days and those since, including this year, suggest he is not that unusual genetically or otherwise.
I believe the following provides a very good explanation to all of your points.
Armstrong trained extremely hard starting at a very early age. This training went beyond cycling as it included both running and swimming. He was quite good at the latter two sports. This led to him becoming a triathlete. In his early/mid teens, he posted times on the bicycle that were well ahead of all the best triathaletes of that era at the same age. According on one source his high level of training at such a young age most likely contributed to him developing an unusually large heart muscle (genetics may have also played a role). His heart is capable of pumping blood through his veins at a level significantly greater than most athletes. One source contends that it is also at a level that's statistically significant to other elite athletes. I'm not aware of any professional cyclist who ever competed at this level in both triathlon and cycling.
This is a noteworthy read:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26067.php There's tons of medical research available that supports the contention that Lance is a freak of nature. I've read that when tested at altitude his uptake of oxygen (VO2 Max) does not decline by any significant amount which is unusual.
There's data supporting that Armstrong's muscles do not build up lactic acid as quickly and expel it faster than other elite cyclists thus allowing for quicker recovery and maximal output for longer periods of time. To date, no scientific explanation exists for this phenomenon. He’s in a class of one.
During his bout with cancer his doctors believed that he no chance of survival. I've heard his oncologist say this in several interviews. This is contrary to what they told him. To give him hope they said he had a 40% chance of survival. He was in the most advanced stage of testicular cancer and the worst they had ever seen. It had matasticized from his testicals to his abdomen, lungs and brain. He had a dozen golf ball size tumors in his lungs. Brain surgery was required to remove two tumors. He lost 20% of his muscle mass. Let’s put the cancer aside for a moment. Ask any elite athlete if they believe they could lose 20% of their muscle mass due to cancer and come back to perform at the most elite level of their sport. I’ve asked some. They all have said no. Look at it another way. Even if Armstrong is the biggest doper in the history of professional cycling it still doesn’t explain his super human feat. The only thing that I believe can explain this is a combination of unique genetics, a superior work ethic and a level of determination you and I will never understand. That's pretty amazing.
chill
ReplyDelete