July 10, 2012

"This Court is not inclined to indulge [Lance] Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants..."

"... by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims."

Case dismissed less than 7 hours after it was filed.

ADDED: Who knew a judge could decide tl;dr?

21 comments:

ndspinelli said...

Lance Armstrong is a self absorbed, phoney, lying sack of shit. Look for him to run fot political office soon.

Carol said...

An 111-page complaint? What kind of lawyer would file something like that?

That sounds more like a pro se filing by some vexatious litigant.

traditionalguy said...

Why do Americans hate Lance Armstrong? Are we bitter about his beating the poor French losers like a drum. They could not pedal up the Alps strong like Armstrong.

I just think of Lance as another Mormon Missionary to France riding his bicycle everywhere and dreaming so hard of home and Anne that he pulled a Forest Gump and out pedaled everyone in Europe.

chickelit said...

"Lance, get an enhance"

(who's old enough to relate to that one?)

Lem said...

Putting aside this mishap..

I cant help but note.. as it appears to me from my small window.. that there is a vendetta against Armstrong.

The man is retired.. why go after him now?

Notice how baseball dealt with a few comments from Jesse Jackson about a still active player on a magazine interview... a player that insinuated that if he had to do it all over again things would have been different.

Yes.. these are two different sports.. two different cultures.. but the difference still striking.

Armstrong wears a scarlet letter of some kind.. no smoking gun.. no positive test.

Hell yea he should sue.

Lem said...

oops.. I meant Reggie Jackson.. Not Jesse Jackson.

Alan said...

Judge Sam Sparks is known in these parts (Austin) for a couple of things. First, he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Second, he's kind of proud of his own wit. So, this result surprises me little.

Austin could stand a little less "hero worship" of Lance Armstrong.

Aridog said...

How many times will Armstrong be "charged" with something without evidence beyond hear say? He failed a test in 2010 or 2009 they say, what took so long? Oh, he didn't flunk the tests, just others say he should have. That like the test he alleged failed in 2002, at an event he did not enter? WTF?

Sav said...

Aridog,

This is the first official investigation of Armstrong by an anti-doping body. Although really it was an investigation into his team.

The 2002 test you refer to is actually from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. The media incorrectly referred to it as the 2002 edition initially which Armstrong didn't race. He dominated the 2001 version.

The '09-'10 tests are actually blood values that were documented on something called a Biological Passport. There are no tests for blood doping so you can't fail. It's up to a panel to decide if the values show enough abnormalities to suggest blood doping. Pro cycling's main body, the UCI, may or may not have come to this conclusion. It's hard to know because they notoriously failed to sanction five riders with suspicious values in 2009 and refused to share the values with the World-Anti Doping Agency until this February. It's possible one of the values belonged to Armstrong.


Long-winded response, I know, but hope it helps.

Sav said...

"The man is retired.. why go after him now?"

@Lem,

The reason it is happening now is because USADA didn't have the needed info to start an investigation until Armstrong's former teammate Floyd Landis sent e-mails detailing an alleged doping operation at U.S. Postal to authorities in 2010. That got the ball rolling.

Aridog said...

@ Sav ... thanks for clarifying it a bit. However, I have a "problem" with this part:

It's up to a panel to decide if the values show enough abnormalities...

In other, simpler words, they do NOT have a scientifically verifiable method (yet) to determine this relationship.

Additionally, the time lapse today implies "guessing" to me ... but I may just be cynic. For a test to not be notable until some remarks by another competitor reeks of what I thought was "hearsay" (not a lawyer, so I could be very wrong on that)...evidence that doesn't stand alone but is usable after another competitor (Landis) says it is so?

PS: I am watching the Tour de France almost as we speak ... just my suspicion, but if the first 50 odd ranked competitors aren't doing something to "enhance" performance, I'm a pig tyhat can fly. Same as in most "professional" sports today.

That said, science needs to be applied and tests need to be confirmatory & dependable, no guessing, no consensus opinion, yada yada ... or they should not be evidence. Period. An innocent competitor can be smeared and ruined when the simple fact is, some athletes are just a step beyond the others. To assume because some semi-vague parameters are not met, a panel of "experts" determine something not actually in evidence is manipulation just as much as any doping is per se.

Sports today have become items with measurements down to 1/100th of a second in some events (where the actual measurement is rounded from timed 1/10,000ths) ... so to my less than sophisticated mind, any test should be at least as accurate or very close....or not used until it is so.

Sorry for the epistle. It just bugs me, the weight of "opinion" alone, plus the timing of it all especially. What's next, US alpine ski racer Lindsey Vonn (arguably the best overall in the world ... in a very Lance Armstrong dominant sort of way) being investigated a few years after she retires, too?

Aridog said...

Since this doesn't seem to be an over loaded thread, I should take the time and confess what really bugs me today ... the presumption of guilt until innocence is proven. It has become de rigueur in too many instances today. For a "civilian" example: Armstrong is banned from competition until he proves his innocence,...punishment precedes a true finding.

I am a retired Military and "Fed" ... and have watched "rule makings" assume the force of law, in government, often without a shred of basis in purported underlying legislation. In short, if some agency "thinks" you are guilty, you ARE guilty (fines & penalties are assessed from day one) ...now you go prove you aren't. Civilian organizations are beginning to do the same kinds of things.

The most egregious, in my opinion, actual legislation concocted this way is the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Orignally devised to be a management tool for bringing US military contractors under US law. However ...it has been used to prosecute former active duty soldiers based upon hear say alone. It has not statutory limitations. In short, I could be charged under it for time I spent traipsing around jungles 40+ years ago if some purported contemporary were to say I committed some war crime. No evidence necessary to bring the charges.

So, yeah, I do have a "bad attitude" regarding what appear to be to be presumptive accusations without tangible evidence to base charges on, but punishments assessed immediately.

Sav said...

Aridog,

"they do NOT have a scientifically verifiable method (yet) to determine this relationship."

Well, they can determine with near certainty if someone is messing with their blood. It's not the only test that relies on parameters. Hematocrit levels have to be below a certain number or else they can assume red blood cell manipulation. The ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone also has to be within a certain ratio. If not, it's likely a masking agent has been used. That's how they caught Floyd Landis, incidentally.


It's not known exactly why the blood values came to light later. It wasn't due to Landis. It should be noted that the UCI, which maintains the Bio Passport in which the values are measured and studied, has been called out by WADA and USADA for failing to sanction numerous riders with suspicious values. The UCI failed to share their findings with WADA until February even though the program has been going on for about five years.


The timing of the investigation was due to getting Landis' e-mails in 2010 alleging team doping. Prior to that they didn't have enough reason to justify an investigation.


Armstrong's only prevented from one triathlon, a result of World Triathlon Corporation rules against competing when being involved in an open investigation. There are other events that he'll be able to compete in.

Aridog said...

@ Save ... thank you, again, for your patient and very rational explanation. Landis is Landis and Armstrong is not. And definitely, Landis is not Armstrong. Landis says others doped up one way or another, etc....the archetypal cross armed pointing finger salute, no?

The timing of the investigation was due to getting Landis' e-mails in 2010 alleging team doping. Prior to that they didn't have enough reason to justify an investigation.

I still see that as no case except for hear-say. Nothing to justify investigation until Landis writes out allegations?

Thanks for clarifying the Armstrong ban from only one race (so far) ... however, it is still a penalty prior to conviction so to speak. I realize various race groups have rules, and in this case, I think the exception proves the rule of supposition over determination.

Thank you again for your patient explanations. I am relatively new to being a fan of bicycle racing, but not sport in general....I have my favorites that I participated in long before all this "testing" and "panal finding" stuff became de rigueur. Not because I cheated, but specifically because I didn't.

Aridog said...

@ Sav ... at the risk of wearing you out, can you answer a cpouple more questions?

The ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone also has to be within a certain ratio. If not, it's likely a masking agent has been used. That's how they caught Floyd Landis

Okay. Was the Landis ratio within specified parameters? If not, then that is a scientific finding, not a panel opinion. I gather they caught Landis actually failing a test given parameters that a repeatable and discreet.

Am I wrong in that interpretation?

PS: I am very familiar with measurement science (metrology), such as it is, and understand parameters and tolerances, due to some 20 years time working with NIST (old NBS) on force and mass measurements and federal code relating to same.

Sav said...

No problem.

Landis' explanation for spilling was that he decided to be a bit of a whistleblower. Some think it's because he wants to embarrass the UCI which he believes is corrupt and was involved in coverups. Who knows? Either way, his emails were quite detailed and named, I believe, 16 cyclists plus some non-cyclists like managers and team personnel.

I can tell you have disdain for Landis, and with his behavior both prior to and after his positive it's understandable. That said, the governing bodies take it very seriously when someone comes forward with allegations of doping, regardless of who it's from. It's just that it hardly ever happens. Code of silence and everything...

I'll respond to your other questions in another post.

Sav said...

"Was the Landis ratio within specified parameters? If not, then that is a scientific finding, not a panel opinion."

I had to go back and look this up and it's more complicated than I remember.

They found his ratios were 11:1 with the limit being 4:1. That alone isn't sanctionable though. It allows them to do a CIR test (Why they don't do that initially, I don't know) which found synthetic testosterone. So he did, in fact, fail a test once the abnormal ratio was discovered. I apologize for getting that wrong.

Methadras said...

Armstrong got tealdeared.

Aridog said...

Thanks again for your time & patience.

My principle concern was and is the idea that hear say emails or whatever are sufficient for bringing charges. Especially emails subsequent to a negative finding on the writer. It smacks of the "everybody does it, so I am not guilty" gambit.

Usually a whistle-blower, in government matters anyway, brings more to the table than commentary and opinion ...e.g., tangible evidence of malfeasance, or there is no whistle to blow.

I know, because I have done it....and to this day no one I don't want to know the particulars knows them. I acted prior the there being any scandal to dispute. There never was a dispute, I had the facts cold. Secrecy was maintained, the activity was ceased immediately, and I gained nothing but satisfaction of a responsibility carried out.

Landis waits until all the fugits are in the fan blades, until after he's found "guilty" ... yeah, to me, that's suspicious. Sounds a whole lot like he feels remorse for one thing ...getting caught ... so not to attack others? If he has or had any real evidence of UCI corruption he could have just laid it all out ... but he didn't, so he wrote a "story."

The "story" could be true, but approached the way it has been, it smells contrived and retaliatory. That doping to some degree is done seems very likely in almost all professional sports. Ole Landis just over did it a bit in 2006 withy his superman bit.

Sav said...

"is the idea that hear say emails or whatever are sufficient for bringing charges. Especially emails subsequent to a negative finding on the writer. It smacks of the "everybody does it, so I am not guilty" gambit."


The emails initiated the investigation, but they had to collect evidence to bring charges. And while I couldn't say what Landis' motives were, he had already confessed to his doping by that point, and he was privy to Postal's inner workings. I wouldn't feel too confident in his assertions alone, but many of them have been backed since then which makes me take them more seriously. Sure, he made a fool of himself and took advantage of others trying to save his rear end, but it's still possible he witnessed wrongdoing. He could be a clown and a witness. Those things are not necessarily exclusive.

Aridog said...

@ Sav ...In case you're still watching this thread, I agree that it's possible to be a clown and a witness. Credibility would play in to that at bit, I'd hope, but in today's world, nothing is a sure thing.

As I watch the 2012 Tour de France carefully, I'm more and more of the opinion that a whole lot of folks must enhance their performance somehow. The "surges" are phenomenal, though none quite as dubious as Landis in 2006.

In other words, Landis may be correct that everybody does it, to some degree. His error was to over do it.

His new found sense of false righteousness is on a par with the the folks at Penn State University these days....although no where near as criminal as the Penn State crowd.