The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Did he just give up fighting them? Or was it an un-winnable fight because they had the goods on him?

Probalby.

This whole thing is a can of worms.  One side says they have blood test evidence, the other says independent tests as well as official show nothing.  Without more information, I certainly can't figure it out.


It does seems very strange at that level of performance and athletic ability, one person could dominate one event so completely for so long without some "assistance".  But these guys are separated by fractional percentages in those abilities.  The first half dozen to cross the line are so close, it seems like if Lance is suspect, the rest of them should be too.  And iirc, there were at least one or two that were also "tagged" with this problem in recent years (I don't follow it that closely, other than to just acknowledge, "yeah, Lance won again...")

Imagine walking into a courtroom as the defendant in a lawsuit. The prosecuting attorney reads the charges against you citing nothing more than the testimony of anonymous witnesses as evidence. You object, claiming this is unjust! To your surprise the prosecutor walks to the judge's bench, puts on a judge's robe and denies your motion. The prosecutor, still wearing his judge's robe, then takes out his cell phone and calls three of his friends to serve on your "independent" jury.

This fictitious, but obviously unjust situation is incredibly similar to the case Lance Armstrong currently faces from the United States Anti-doping Agency and its CEO Travis T. Tygart.

A similar investigation led by the United States Department of Justice concluded in February, 2012. After almost two years of investigation, and millions of US tax dollars spent researching Armstrong's past, the USDOJ decided there wasn't enough evidence to continue the investigation. So is this just another branch of the Federal government wasting millions of more tax dollars on the same investigation?

No, despite the officially sounding name, it turns out the "United States Anti-doping Agency is not a part of the federal government. Although it receives almost 90 percent of its funding from the federal grants, the USADA is a government program masquerading as a non-profit organization. This non-profit status allows it to investigate and prosecute athletes without affording them the constitutional and due process protections required of other federal agencies. This status also allows it to prosecute athletes with a lower burden of proof than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that would have been required in the previous investigation by the USDOJ. Finally, it allows a situation where the same man, Mr. Travis T. Tygart is allowed to serve as Prosecutor, Jury and Judge in the investigation of Lance Armstrong.

PROSECUTOR: Tygart initiated the charges.

On June 12, 2012, Travis Tygart and his staff at the USADA sent a letter to Armstrong accusing him of violating anti-doping rules. As evidence of this violation, Mr. Tygart and his staff were only able to cite previous drug tests that Armstrong had passed and the testimony of anonymous witnesses.

In the letter, Mr. Tygart informs Armstrong that he has 10 days to submit evidence to a Review Board that will determine if there is "sufficient evidence of doping" to continue with a full hearing. In his defense, Armstrong can only offer written materials to the Review Board. He will not even be allowed to know the names of the cyclists that have allegedly testified against him.

JURY: Tygart gets to hand pick the Review Board

The "Review Board" will decide whether charges should be brought against Armstrong from the USADA, and whether the case shall go to a full arbitration hearing. Who serves on this review Board? According to USADA protocol 11(b) The independent "review board" shall be appointed by the USADA's CEO. You read that correctly, Mr. Tygart is allowed to handpick the individuals that serve as the "Jury", and decide if these charges should move forward. If an athlete had failed a drug test and the board was looking at objective evidence this process might make sense; however, Armstrong has never failed a drug test. All of the evidence in this case is subjective. Mr. Tygart has allegedly caught several other cyclists doping, and offered them immunity in exchange for their testimony against Lance. Shouldn't the credibility of such a witness be at least considered? Well, let's assume that Mr. Tygart's buddies, I mean, the independent "review board" find enough evidence to move the investigation forward, what happens next?

JUDGE: Tygart and USADA staff recommends sanction

Under the Applicable rules, Travis Tygart and his staff at the USADA, will recommend a sanction that will be imposed which may include up to a lifetime of ineligibility from sport. Finally, if Armstrong disagrees with the sanction imposed on him by Mr. Tygart, he can appeal for a full arbitration hearing.

USADA lacks internal and external controls

If Mr. Tygart and staff have the power it appears, what are the internal and external controls at USADA? What would restrict an overly ambitious CEO with an "axe to grind?"According to USADA bylaws, the organization has a very small ten member board of directors. The current director's are apparently impressed with Tygart and his "Tygarthian" prosecution style of accusing first and looking for evidence later. Unless Mr. Tygart received a pay cut last year, he's been paid a total of over $1.2 million in compensation and $100,000 in bonuses over the past four years. The spokesperson at the USADA did respond to my e-mail, but she declined to comment whether Tygart's bonuses were tied to finding a certain number of athletes or a particularly high profile athlete guilty of doping.

So, how are the USADA's directors chosen? Although the Bylaws allow other organizations to nominate potential directors, the USADA Board essentially has the power to elect their own replacements. This could ensure that only directors sympathetic to the Tygart are ever elected, and removes the accountability that a non-profit board should provide.

Finally, there's the office of National Drug Control Policy. This is the branch of the Federal government that funds the USADA $10 million a year of federal tax dollars to operate. According to legal counsel for the NDCP office, the $10 million grant is an "unsupervised non-competitive" grant. So, Tygart and staff are guaranteed $10 million a year in funding from the Federal government, but must answer to no one.

MY VERDICT

Do I think Mr. Tygart has some kind of personal vendetta against Lance? My personal opinion is yes, but I also think actions sometime speak louder than words. The 2012 London Olympic Games are a little more than a month away. Mr. Tygart and his staff are responsible for testing all US athletes headed to the games. However, he has chosen to use the majority of his offices resources investigating whether a retired cyclist doped 16 years ago.

The investigation and sanctioning process at the USADA is unconscionable. The partiality of the prosecutor, the lack of due process for the accused, and the lack of an independent fact finder are completely at odds with our American system of justice and fairness.

In the words of Heinlein, "To give a man power without accountability is to establish a tyrant."

Update: Thank you for all the likes, responses, positive and negative comments. For those of you that had questions:

Who are you? I am not a writer, I'm just an age group triathlete, who like the thousands of you felt angry and powerless with this unjust process.

What can we do to help? Travis Tygart is the CEO of a non-profit organization that receives the majority of its funding from federal tax dollars. As such, he must remember that he is still a public servant. The use of our tax dollars to pursue a personal vendetta and personal ambition is unacceptable. I believe the directors of this organization should immediately meet and vote to end this investigation. It would only take six members of the Board of Directors of the USADA to act with conscience, remove Travis Tygart from office, end this tribunal, and right the ship at the USADA. He is blurring the mission of the USADA beyond recognition. I encourage each of you to let your voice be heard. Send an e-mail today to askinner@usada.org expressing your view on this matter and ask that is be forwarded to every member of the Board of Directors.

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
Thomas Jefferson

Where did you do your research?

I spent a significant amount of time researching the information here to ensure its accuracy. Several of the comments below questioned its veracity. I would encourage you to read the article more carefully and review all of the material below. All of the information I discussed is public information, most of which is available on the USADA website. The information for this story came from the following sources:

The financial information is public record made available on the Form 990 which is the information return that non-profit 501©3 organizations such as USADA are required to file with the IRS. The USADA's return for 2010 is available on its website. www.usada.org/uploads/990.pdf I requested the 2011 information from the USADA and they informed me they were not required to file this until October, 2012. I also reviewed the 990 filing for the 2008, and 2009 tax year. You can find these on www.guidestar.org
The Bylaws I referenced in this article are available on the USADA www.usada.org/uploads/usada%20bylaws.pdf You have to read these closely several times to realize the lack of accountability the current Director nomination process provides.
I also read and cited to the USADA protocol which is available here http://www.usada.org/files/pdfs/usada-protocol.pdf The difficulty of understanding this process, led me to the "prosecutor, judge, and jury" analogy. You will find the board review process on page 8. If the analogy were to continue the appellate court would be the "AAA" Arbitration hearing, I refer to this as a full arbitration hearing in the article above to aid in understanding. Finally, the Supreme Court in my analogy, would be the "Court of Arbitration of Sport" More info can be found on Annex E at page 75.
I also read and cited to the June 12, 2012 letter from the USADA outlining the charges. http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0613/armstrongcharges.pdf

5. The comment from the Office of NDCP was from an attorney in the Freedom of Information Act Division.

6. I sent several e-mails to USADA last week asking for comment on this story, and they refused other than saying the 2011, form 990 would be available in October.

* Slight correction, I claimed that USADA received almost 90% of its funding from the federal government. In 2010 it received 66% of its funding from a federal grant. Another 21% came from the United States Olympic Committee, an organization that I believed to be completely federally funded. USOC actually receives both private than federal funding. Thanks to @Benjamin Berry for pointing that out.

Submitted by Tim Dockery on Jun 21, 2012

“We are cheating and can’t catch him, therefore he must be cheating!!!"

As most of you know, I’m more than a casual observer to cycling so I’ve been following this for quite a while.  It doesn’t make me an expert on the case nor an insider, just saying I’ve got more than a casual interest since Lance has been and is an inspiration for many people not only in the cycling community but on many fronts.

They have no blood test evidence on Armstrong and never have.  According to statements by Lance, he passed over 500 tests in more than 20 years.  No one has ever produced positive test results to contradict this claim.  USADA came after him after a two year federal investigation determined there was insufficient evidence to push a criminal case against him.  All they have are previous teammates who may or may not have cut a deal for immunity by saying “Oh yeah, Lance doped like we all did!  I saw it in his refrigerator!”.  That was paraphrased from an interview with Tyler Hamilton they replayed this morning on CBS.  His body language and facial expressions all indicated he was lying (at least according to any 15 minute primer you can read about deception and how to tell when someone is bullshitting).

When a prosecutor says: “You could do prison time and pay hefty fines for your involvement.  Tell me now, who else did this on your team?  Did Lance?”

What will someone say?  “Send me to prison!!”

USADA came after him with nothing more than circumstantial and anecdotal evidence at best and supposed blood test data which had not been acted upon while he was competing again in 2009 and 2010.  If he tested positive in ’09 and ’10 while competing at the elite level again, why were there no sanctions brought against him at the time as they were against other cyclists like 2009 and 2010 TDF winner, Alberto Contador.  Contador was stripped of his 2010 title after a positive test for clenobuterol during the tour.  If Armstrong tested positive, why didn’t the world anti-doping authority do anything about it as they obviously did with others?

Additionally, Mrs. C was curious about what EPO does and looked up an article on it.  EPO increases the body’s output of red blood cells.  More oxygen to muscles increases performance.  However, it also makes blood thicker.  Elite athletes typically have very low resting heart rates.  Armstrong reputedly has a resting HR of around 32.  Do you really think he’d be willing to risk death for athletic glory?  Pro athletes have died as a result of EPO use.

This is not the only case of Travis Tygart and USADA going after athletes with little evidence.  Though not a federal agency, they are a quasi-governmental “non-profit” which receives a good amount of funding in grants from the feds to the tune of about $6.6 mil a year, the rest of the budget appears to come from the US Olympic Committee which I believe gets funds from the feds and other sources.

There is no innocent until proven guilty with Tygart and USADA, it’s guilty until proven innocent or until you simply say “F*ck it!” and give up.  It’s yet one more diseased tentacle in our mis-guided “war on drugs”.  We send otherwise good contributors to prison for relatively minor possession or use.  We spend billions incarcerating people who might otherwise be contributing to society with some rehabilitative help, and now it appears we are willing to spend millions to billions on ruining the lives and besmirching the careers of our sports heroes.

Why are Congress and the feds so enraptured with doping and steroid use amongst athletes?  Where in the Constitution does it say you cannot risk your personal health in achieving athletic excellence?  

And here I was hoping this thread was NSFW with some good nudies of Lance stripping.

And here I was hoping this thread was NSFW with some good nudies of Lance stripping.

Just no pleasing some people....there are pictures of him all over the internet in Spandex!!  Ain't that enough?

I have some Livestrong bracelets if anyone would like one.;)

Gonna bail on Lance?

Not a chance.

I like Lance.  And doesn't really matter to me if he was doing the doping or not.  Since the losers WERE doing it, all it shows is that in a "level" field, he was still the best.  If he did not do the doping, then it just REALLY emphasizes how much massively mo' better he was than the rest of them.

And all this while fighting cancer in the middle of it all?  Geez, what a bunch of whiney, sniveling little brats the rest of them are....

Amazing that he was able to fake negative tests for so many years. Gotta love witch hunts.

Gonna bail on Lance?

Nope.  Still wearing mine.  Just thought maybe you might want to outwardly show your support.;)

Steroids....let's let freedom reign. If an athlete so chooses, let him. Same with every other drug. Too hard to police everyone and too many prisoners.

EDIT! and too much time and money wasted by the government chasing down these victim-less criminals.

I agree 100%.

Sooner or later, Conan, we'll make a believer out of you....

Steroids....let's let freedom reign. If an athlete so chooses, let him. Same with every other drug. Too hard to police everyone and too many prisoners.

EDIT! and too much time and money wasted by the government chasing down these victim-less criminals.

Why is it the government's responsibility anyways. If baseball/bicycling/football wants to impose rules, go for it. They are also the arbiter of those rules, not the government, so long as it's employees are not breaking federal laws, which I don't believe doping is illegal. Correct me if I am wrong.

Congressional committees like to be on ESPN.

Must be. It's completely ridiculous for them to inject themselves. And at that to inject themselves into the playing of games. Seriously.

,
 
Thank you for emailing me your concerns about investigations by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) into Lance Armstrong regarding illegal performance enhancing drugs. It is good to hear from you.
 
I appreciate your concerns about the actions taken by USADA against Mr. Armstrong. Despite the implication of the organization’s name, however, the USADA is not a government entity. Therefore, the action it takes is not under the purview of the federal government or Congress. That said, Congress recognizes the role of the organization in testing U.S. Olympic athletes, and it is partly funded by a federal grant through the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). I agree with you that the United States government should spend its money subsidizing an organization that could easily be funded by private organizations, including professional sports associations that bring in billions of dollars in revenue each year.
 
I am sorry you are frustrated by the actions of USADA and believe they are tarnishing the reputation of Mr. Armstrong. I encourage you to contact USADA to express your concerns to them, and you can find contact information on the organization’s webpage here: http://www.usada.org/contact/.
 
Thank you again for contacting me, and for your words of encouragement regarding my work to eliminate government waste. Best wishes.
 
 
Sincerely,
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States Senator
 

100% disagree.

If performance enhancing drugs are allowed the game is suddenly shifted to see who is willing to take the most  health risks to win.  A perverted notion where the most reckless always wins in the short term.  Not to mention teaching everyone else you cannot aucceed without cheating.

Drugs for pros.  Better do them in college to prepare.  If you want a college schollie you had better shoot up in high school.

I am generally in favor of legalizing drugs, but keep them out of my sports.

100% disagree.

If performance enhancing drugs are allowed the game is suddenly shifted to see who is willing to take the most  health risks to win.  A perverted notion where the most reckless always wins in the short term.  Not to mention teaching everyone else you cannot aucceed without cheating.

Drugs for pros.  Better do them in college to prepare.  If you want a college schollie you had better shoot up in high school.

I am generally in favor of legalizing drugs, but keep them out of my sports.

With the 7 Tour De France titles stripped, anyone think this will forever sully the sport, lead to any major changes?

With the 7 Tour De France titles stripped, anyone think this will forever sully the sport, lead to any major changes?

Unless someone has figured out a way to mask the doping that UCI or anyone else hasn't found out about yet, supposedly the entire peloton is clean these days. 

I don't condone what he and his teammates did and I'm also not happy that Lance apparently lied all this time.

Armstrong passed every single test.

So you've flipped on him now too?

(Reuters) - Lance Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and banned for life on Monday after the International Cycling Union (UCI) ratified the United States Anti-Doping Agency's (USADA) sanctions against the American.

The long-awaited decision has left cycling facing its "greatest crisis" according to UCI president Pat McQuaid and has destroyed Armstrong's last hope of clearing his name.

"Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling. Lance Armstrong deserves to be forgotten in cycling," McQuaid told a news conference as he outlined how cycling, long battered by doping problems for decades, would have to start all over again.

"The UCI wishes to begin that journey on that path forward today by confirming that it will not appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and that it will recognize the sanction that USADA has imposed.

"I was sickened by what I read in the USADA report."

On October 10, USADA published a report into Armstrong which alleged the now-retired rider had been involved in the "most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen".

Armstrong, 41, had previously elected not to contest USADA charges, prompting USADA to propose his punishment pending confirmation from cycling's world governing body.

Former Armstrong team mates at his U.S. Postal and Discovery Channel outfits, where he won his seven successive Tour titles from 1999 to 2005, testified against him and themselves and were given reduced bans by the American authorities.

"It wasn't until the intervention of federal agents...they called these riders in and they put down a gun and badge on the table in front of them and said 'you're now facing a grand jury you must tell the truth' that those riders broke down," McQuaid added.

Armstrong, widely accepted as one of the greatest cyclists of all time given he fought back from cancer to dominate the sport, has always denied doping and says he has never failed a doping test.

He said he had stopped contesting the charges after years of probes and rumors because "there comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, 'Enough is enough'".

WIDESPREAD DOPING

McQuaid, who faced criticism from several quarters for his and the UCI's handling of the affair, said he would not be resigning.

"Cycling has a future. This is not the first time cycling has reached a crossroads or that it has had to begin anew," he said in front of a packed room full of journalists and television cameras.

"When I took over (as president) in 2005 I made the fight against doping my priority. I acknowledged cycling had a culture of doping. Cycling has come a long way. I have no intention of resigning as president of the UCI.

"I am sorry we couldn't catch every damn one of them red handed and throw them out of the sport."

Other issues such as the potential re-awarding of Armstrong's Tour titles and the matter of prize money will be discussed by the UCI Management Committee on Friday.

Tour director Christian Prudhomme has said he believes no rider should inherit the titles given doping was so widespread among the peloton at the time but McQuaid made it clear the decision rested with his organization, not the Tour.

USADA charged five people over the doping ring. Doctors Luis Garcia del Moral and Michele Ferrari and trainer Pepe Marti have been banned for life while Armstrong's mentor Johan Bruyneel has chosen to go to arbitration along with doctor Pedro Celaya.

Armstrong's last hope that the UCI might not ratify USADA's ruling sprang from long-running dispute between the two bodies over who should handle the case.

In statements issued at the news conference, the UCI continued the feud with USADA despite ratifying its decision.

"Even apart from any discussion on jurisdiction, it would have been better that the evidence collected by USADA had been assessed by a neutral body or person who was not involved in collecting the evidence and prosecuting the defendant," it said.

"This would have avoided both the criticism of a witch hunt against Mr Armstrong and the criticism that the UCI had a conflict of interest."

The UCI also said it had dope tested Armstrong 218 times and the fact he never tested positive and "beat the system" means that other organizations such as the World Anti-Doping Agency should share the responsibility of accepting the results.

USADA chief Travis Tygart issued a statement approving of the UCI's action but warning that more needed to be done.

"Despite its prior opposition to USADA's investigation into doping on the U.S. Postal Service cycling team and within the sport, USADA is glad that the UCI finally reversed course in this case and has made the credible decision available to it," he said.

"This determination to uphold USADA's decision on the U.S. Postal Services case does not by itself clean up cycling nor does it ensure the sport has moved past the obstacles that allowed doping to flourish in the age of EPO and blood transfusions.

"For cycling to truly move forward and for the world to know what went on in cycling, it is essential that an independent and meaningful Truth and Reconciliation Commission be established so that the sport can fully unshackle itself from the past."

In recent years the Tour de France and cycling had looked to be winning the battle against dopers but when asked if the sport would one day be free of the scourge, McQuaid answered: "No."

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) said it would take its time to digest the news amid suggestions that Armstrong could be stripped of his 2000 Sydney Olympics time trial bronze.

"We will study UCI's response to the USADA report and await to receive their full decision including further potential sanctions against Lance Armstrong as well as regarding any ramifications to his case," an IOC official said.

(Additional reporting by Brian Homewood, Toby Davis, Mitch Phillips, Gene Cherry Karolos Grohmann and Justin Palmer; Editing by Mark Meadows)

In his book, The Secret Race, published in the US on Wednesday, Hamilton claims that Armstrong told him he had failed a doping test before the Tour of Switzerland in 2001 and that the International Cycling Union had covered it up, a claim the sport’s governing body has consistently denied since it was raised by Floyd Landis and then Hamilton for the first time last year.

“What happened next was a call was made from cycling’s body, UCI, that this test should go no further, this matter should end here,” said Hamilton’s ghost-writer, Daniel Coyle, in a television interview on Wednesday.

“There was a meeting between Armstrong, his coach and the lab and then there was also a $125,000 [£78,500] donation from Armstrong to the UCI.”

The UCI, when answering the original Landis claims in 2010, confirmed that it had received a $125,000 donation from Armstrong towards drug testing equipment but flatly denied that it was in return for turning a blind eye to a positive test.

“We’ve contacted the labs involved for testing for EPO at that time,” said UCI president Pat McQuaid when answering the original allegations from Landis. “I have a statement here from those labs that support what I am about to say.

“The AFLD [French Anti-Doping Agency] had three positives for EPO in the UCI account between 2001 and 2003. All the reports were sent to the International Olympic Committee.

“In the Lausanne laboratory there were 18 positive tests for EPO for the UCI between 2001 and 2003. All analysis was sent to the IOC and Swiss Olympic Committee.

"I also have a letter from WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] that states from January 2004, every positive result for UCI also went to them. I also have a report from the Tour de Suisse from 2001 which states that there was no doping case in 2001.

"All this information supports what the UCI has always stated: that there is no way that the UCI or its former president Hein Verbruggen could have accepted a bribe. It’s just not possible.”

No I haven't flipped on him, but the USADA report (admittedly I've not read it) seems to have been damning enough that Nike, Anhueiser-Busch, and Trek Bicycles all dropped his personal sponsorship deals a week after USADA published their report stating they believe he was involved in doping.

Doesn't matter if they think he is guilty or not, why would they want to sponsor a retired athlete who refused to dispute allegations that he cheated?

Had a great coupla days in Portland working with my great partners Nike. Awesome to see the show of support on livestrongday. 16 yrs!
Headed back 2 Austin now 2 celebrate with family/friends. There were days I never thought I'd see 2012. Blessed to be this side of the grass

"I'm sorry."
Those were the simple words Lance Armstrong offered to friends and colleagues before coming clean about his use of  performance-enhancing drugs during an extraordinary cycling career that included seven Tour de France victories.

Despite years of adamant denial, Armstrong finally confessed to doping during an interview with Oprah Winfrey taped Monday, just a couple of hours after an emotional apology to the staff at the Livestrong charity he founded and was later forced to surrender, a person familiar with the situation told The Associated Press. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the interview is to be broadcast Thursday on Winfrey's network.

The confession marks a stunning reversal for the proud athlete and celebrity who for so long has sought lavish praise in the court of public opinion, using these courtrooms to punish his critics.

For more than a decade, Armstrong dared anybody who challenged his version of events to prove it. Finally, he told the tale himself after promising over the weekend to answer Winfrey's questions "directly, honestly and candidly."

Shortly after the interview ended, Winfrey teased to her followers on Twitter as to what viewers can expect: "Just wrapped with @lancearmstrong More than 2 1/2 hours. He came READY!"

Lance could have a positive impact if he tells the truth on everything. He's got to be completely honest.

- Betsy Andreu, wife of former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu

The cyclist was stripped of his Tour de France titles, lost most of his endorsements and was forced to leave Livestrong last year after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency issued a damning, 1,000-page report that accused him of masterminding a long-running doping scheme.

Armstrong started the day with a visit to the headquarters of the Livestrong charity he founded in 1997 and turned into a global force on the strength of his athletic dominance and personal story of surviving testicular cancer that had spread to his lungs and brain.

About 100 Livestrong staff members gathered in a conference room as Armstrong told them "I'm sorry." He choked up during a 20-minute talk, expressing regret for the long-running controversy tied to performance-enhancers had caused, but stopped short of admitting he used them.

Before he was done, several members were in tears when he urged them to continue the charity's mission, helping cancer patients and their families.

"Heartfelt and sincere," is how Livestrong spokeswoman Katherine McLane described his speech.

Armstrong later huddled with almost a dozen people before stepping into a room set up at a downtown Austin hotel for the interview with Winfrey. The group included close friends and lawyers. They exchanged handshakes and smiles, but declined comment and no further details about the interview were released because of confidentiality agreements signed by both camps.

Winfrey has promoted her interview, one of the biggest for OWN since she launched the network in 2011, as a "no-holds barred" session, and after the voluminous USADA report — which included testimony from 11 former teammates — she had plenty of material for questions. USADA chief executive Travis Tygart, a longtime critic of Armstrong's, called the drug regimen practiced while Armstrong led the U.S. Postal Service team "the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen."

USADA did not respond to requests for comment about Armstrong's confession.

Hein Verbruggen, the former president of the International Cycling Union, said Tuesday he wasn't ready to speak about the confession.

"I haven't seen the interview. It's all guessing," Verbruggen told the AP. "After that, we have an independent commission which I am very confident will find out the truth of these things."

For years, Armstrong went after his critics ruthlessly during his reign as cycling champion. He scolded some in public and didn't hesitate to punish outspoken riders during the race itself. He waged legal battles against still others in court.

At least one of his opponents, the London-based Sunday Times, has already filed a lawsuit to recover about $500,000 it paid him to settle a libel case, and Dallas-based SCA Promotions, which tried to deny Armstrong a promised bonus for a Tour de France win, has threatened to bring another lawsuit seeking to recover more than $7.5 million awarded by an arbitration panel.

In Australia, the government of South Australia state said Tuesday it will seek the repayment of several million dollars in appearance fees paid to Armstrong for competing in the Tour Down Under in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

"We'd be more than happy for Mr. Armstrong to make any repayment of monies to us," South Australia Premier Jay Weatherill said.
Betsy Andreu, the wife of former Armstrong teammate Frankie Andreu, was one of the first to publicly accuse Armstrong of using performance-enhancing drugs. She called news of Armstrong's confession "very emotional and very sad," and choked up when asked to comment.

"He used to be one of my husband's best friends and because he wouldn't go along with the doping, he got kicked to the side," she said. "Lance could have a positive impact if he tells the truth on everything. He's got to be completely honest."

Betsy Andreu testified in SCA's arbitration case challenging the bonus in 2005, saying Armstrong admitted in an Indiana hospital room in 1996 that he had taken many performance-enhancing drugs, a claim Armstrong vehemently denied.

"It would be nice if he would come out and say the hospital room happened," Andreu said. "That's where it all started."

Former teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping, has filed a federal whistle-blower lawsuit that accused Armstrong of defrauding the U.S. Postal Service. An attorney familiar with Armstrong's legal problems told the AP that the Justice Department is highly likely to join the lawsuit. The False Claims Act lawsuit could result in Armstrong paying a substantial amount of money to the U.S. government. The deadline for the department to join the case is Thursday, though the department could seek an extension if necessary.
According to the attorney, who works outside the government, the lawsuit alleges that Armstrong defrauded the U.S. government based on his years of denying use of performance-enhancing drugs. The attorney spoke on condition of anonymity because the source was not authorized to speak on the record about the matter.

The lawsuit most likely to be influenced by a confession might be the Sunday Times case. Potential perjury charges stemming from Armstrong's sworn testimony in the 2005 arbitration fight would not apply because of the statute of limitations. Armstrong was not deposed during the federal investigation that was closed last year.

Armstrong is said to be worth around $100 million. But most sponsors dropped him after USADA's scathing report — at the cost of tens of millions of dollars — and soon after, he left the board of Livestrong.

After the USADA findings, he was also barred from competing in the elite triathlon or running events he participated in after his cycling career. World Anti-Doping Code rules state his lifetime ban cannot be reduced to less than eight years. WADA and U.S. Anti-Doping officials could agree to reduce the ban further depending on what information Armstrong provides and his level of cooperation.


Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/sports/2013/01/15/lance-armstrong-comes-clean-to-oprah-confesses-to-doping/#ixzz2I58DaZtK

It's a shame some people have lost respect for someone who motivated them to take care of themselves.

I'm sure Congress will have some committee to get their names on the news.

I'm not seeing much change in my life from this.

It took a lot of Ball for Lance to come clean.....!!!!

He and his Live Strong organization may have done a lot of good, but a reputation of good built up over a lifetime is nonetheless destroyed through one lapse in judgment.  Here, however, rather than a lapse, we have a long planned and meticulously executed effort to break the rules of his sport and gain an advantage over his competitors, and viciously attack anyone who accused him of cheating.  He may have beat cancer and returned to the highest level of his sport, but we now know he is a liar and a cheater  Beating cancer (one wonders what role the drugs he was taking played in causing his cancer) and inspiring other to do the same does not change that fact.  He is yet one more reason why many people believe that in cycling, like college football, if you ain't cheating, you ain't winning.

(http://burnpoetry.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/presentation1.jpg)

Juan Pelota?

Good one!

I had to look that up. You guys amaze me. Still not sure where a Coffee shop fits in there, but I digress.

Tulsa Tough has the testers coming for their next event....if they couldn't catch Lancelot, what makes them think they can catch one of these competitors?

Uhhhh Lance had a team of doctors on his side side...