Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 31 at 9:31 a.m.
A few comments on your open letter:
1. "It seems risible to many that USADA publicly condemns an athlete... with hearsay. What scientific evidence does USADA have?"
Through publicly available sources, they are alleged to have positive or suspicious test results as follows:1993-1995: testosterone, T/E above limit1999: TdF, corticosteroid, false backdate prescription1999: TdF, EPO, 6 samples backtested in 20052001: ToS, EPO, 1-3 samples, covered up by $125K bribe2009/2010: blood manipulation via blood transfusion/EPO, biological transport
USADA would have presented this evidence along with their multiple eyewitnesses: former team cyclists George Hincapie, Levi Leipheimer, Dave Zabriskie, Christian Vande Velde, Frankie Andreu, Tyler Hamilton, Jonathan Vaughters, Floyd Landis, and others; Hamilton and Landis may have credibility issues, but the others are Armstrong's good friends; a former bike mechanic, a former masseuse, a former teammates wife, a former marketing rep; and maybe other evidence such as emails or wire transfers.
But we don't know of all evidence USADA may have produced because Armstrong chose not to arbitrate.
2. "You show the public no evidence". He is not trying his case in the court of public opinion, but in arbitration. Three associates of Armstrong, one team manager and two team doctors are still awaiting arbitration so it would be unwise at this point to release all evidence to the public. It will come out, through arbitration of Armstrong's three associates, and likely other means at the appropriate time. Also, Armstrong has an alleged history of intimidating personnel (Bassons, Simeoni, Walsh, Balleser, O'Reilly, etc.) so keeping the list of eyewitnesses secret is was likely part of USADA's strategy. USADA may have to release the list if their ruling is appealed by UCI or WADA to CAS, per the Texas judge ruling to provide a more specific charging document.
3. "You make the claim that you are defending the integrity of cycling in the U.S.". USADA is simply doing that which they were funded and mandated to do -- enforce anti-doping by catching cheaters to ensure a clean, fair, and safe playing field.
4. "Armstrong did more for cycling as a sport than you did as a bureaucrat". Armstrong spent his career riding a bike. Tygart spent his life fighting for clean, fair, and safe competition in sport. More publicity, more money, etc. doesn't mean the job is more important.
5. "Your folly will be emptier if ICU reasigns Armstrong's victories". UCI has precedence wrt how to redistribute relinquished TdF titles -- They recommended to ASO to vacate first place finish after Riis admitted using EPO to win 1996 TdF.
6. "Your success will be damaging to all those who benefited from Armstrong's charity work. The consequence will be that so much of the good he has done will be tainted".What is the charity work if it was built on a lie?
Just some alternative perspective.
On The Lance Armstrong Case