Popovych to testify in Armstrong probe

RobFowl

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/popovych-to-testify-in-armstrong-probe

Teammate subpoenaed to appear in Los Angeles today
Lance Armstrong’s teammate Yaroslav Popovych has been subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury in Los Angeles on Wednesday as part of the on-going investigation into doping in cycling.
Popovych is a loyal, long-term teammate of Armstrong, riding with him at the Discovery Channel, Astana and RadioShack teams. His lawyer Ken Miller told the Associated Press of the grand jury appearance but declined to give further details

I'm no fan but is this level of investigation really necessary or even justified?
I just think with all the other stuff that's going on today chasing LA for allegations almost a decade old seems inappropriate.

Lumen

What's the problem? It's only a grand jury. You just have to answer a few simple questions then go on your way.

TinyExplosions

Yes, it's necessary and justified... proving that Lance doped would be huge for cycling, and would send a message that no one is above the law.

ednwireland

this isnt news, armstrong has done nothing wrong so its a complete waste of time
[/switch of sarcasm mode]

Nietzschean

i dunno, i'd be of the opinion that UCI should just flat out announce lance never doped, and let him be on his merry way into retirement. Much better for the sport, his image is one of its biggest promoters. I really don't think proving he doped would do anything positive for anyone now....

Caroline_ie

isnt there a 6 years rule thing? the more we let it drag the better chance LA has to keep his wins? is what I am saying even making any sence?

RobFowl

Here you have a state prosecutor chasing present and ex pro/doctors/coaches/sundry others all over the USA and Europe.
All he can try to prove is that when at US Postal state funds were used to fund illicit drug use.
As I can see it even if drug use is proved the issue of what funded it would be hard to pin down. Selling Treks and other equipment on E bay seems to have been the main alleged source of funding.
The other option is to try to get LA to lie under oath and I think he's just too street-smart and advised to do that (pleading the 5th is an option in the States).
Even if doping is admitted/proved it will fall outside WADA's and the UCI's statute of limitations so no sanction can be applied other than a symbolic asterisk beside his name (as was temporarily applied to Riis).
I just fail to see the point. LA fans will still be LA fans. Those who believe he doped will still believe i. There'll be a media circus for a few months then all will settle as before.
For those who feel that it will harm his political aspirations (if indeed he has any) remember that the US electorate happily return George Bush twice even though he was a convicted drunk driver, voted anabolic steroid users (Arnie and Jesse Ventura) as state representatives (neither used them in a situation where use was banned) and supposedly 40% of the electorate believe Barrack Obama is Islamic and was born in Malaysia....

Lumen

The truth is important.

Harrybelafonte

RobFowl wrote: »

Here you have a state prosecutor chasing present and ex pro/doctors/coaches/sundry others all over the USA and Europe.
All he can try to prove is that when at US Postal state funds were used to fund illicit drug use.
As I can see it even if drug use is proved the issue of what funded it would be hard to pin down. Selling Treks and other equipment on E bay seems to have been the main alleged source of funding.
The other option is to try to get LA to lie under oath and I think he's just too street-smart and advised to do that (pleading the 5th is an option in the States).
Even if doping is admitted/proved it will fall outside WADA's and the UCI's statute of limitations so no sanction can be applied other than a symbolic asterisk beside his name (as was temporarily applied to Riis).
I just fail to see the point. LA fans will still be LA fans. Those who believe he doped will still believe i. There'll be a media circus for a few months then all will settle as before.
For those who feel that it will harm his political aspirations (if indeed he has any) remember that the US electorate happily return George Bush twice even though he was a convicted drunk driver, voted anabolic steroid users (Arnie and Jesse Ventura) as state representatives (neither used them in a situation where use was banned) and supposedly 40% of the electorate believe Barrack Obama is Islamic and was born in Malaysia....

That's just for starters, there's a whole bunch of cretins they voted in yesterday too.

nak

I think the rule is 8 years? I think the feds budget would better spent elsewhere. Very much doubt that Popo etc are going to give anything away at this stage. There doesn't seem to be any new physical evidence of doping, just he said/she said and the fact that pretty much everyone else was doing it. You can't convict someone on just that.

Where does it stop, should they go back and investigate every rider that's ever raced at that level and destroy the sport?

Harrybelafonte

nak wrote: »

I think the rule is 8 years? I think the feds budget would better spent elsewhere. Very much doubt that Popo etc are going to give anything away at this stage. There doesn't seem to be any new physical evidence of doping, just he said/she said and the fact that pretty much everyone else was doing it. You can't convict someone on just that.

Where does it stop, should they go back and investigate every rider that's ever raced at that level and destroy the sport?

People deserve to know the truth especially if their tax money was used to fund doping. I totally disagree that it would destroy the sport. It might break the hearts of the "millions" who tune in to the TdF every year, but there's plenty of other fans out there who would see it as a positive move and who see the sport as more than 2 weeks in July.

-Trek-

Lumen wrote: »

The truth is important.

But is'nt it getting old at this stage? If they could'nt prove it back then whats going to make the difference this time round? (a genuine question)
I just believe that its dragging the sport through the mud and I'm getting tired of it, he is retired now (for good:)) let him on his merry way so we can focus our attention on a new tdF champion (once the contador case is sorted of course:D).

Harrybelafonte

Trekmad wrote: »

But is'nt getting old at this stage? If they could'nt prove it back then whats going to make the difference this time round? (a genuine question)
I just believe that its dragging the sport through the mud and I'm getting tired of it, he is retired now (for good:)) let him on his merry way so we can focus our attention on a new tdF champion (once the contador case is sorted of course:D).

If it was a politician who used state funds to further his own career, would you not want to find out what happened? Or would it just get a bit boring?

nak

I think it could potentially destroy the sport in the US, especially as far as team sponsorshiop goes.

ROK ON

As of yet I have not seen any credible argument as to why any of this matters.
Concentrate on current doping (there are plenty of cases).

What is so different between the alleged doping of LA versus the doping of Anquetil, Coppi, Merkx, Hinault, Kelly,Moser etc etc.
The fact that blood and EPO doping is more successful is complete BS.
The intent to cheat is the same. Cycling fans on many websites can hate the likes of LA, Vino, Basso, Valverde et al and yet hero worship the greats of yesteryear.

Cheating is cheating. I don't like it. I understand why it happens and I am of the opinion that it is part of the historical fabric of the sport.

I think efforts would be better expended if authorities concentrated on reducing the incentives to cheat.

-Trek-

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

If it was a politician who used state funds to further his own career, would you not want to find out what happened? Or would it just get a bit boring?

How much time and money have we wasted on investigations like that (politicians) and we're still none the wiser. I'm not making a defence for LA (did he/did'nt he), I was just saying is the outcome going to be any different this time round? and what will make the difference.

Lumen

Trekmad wrote: »

But is'nt it getting old at this stage? If they could'nt prove it back then whats going to make the difference this time round? (a genuine question)
I just believe that its dragging the sport through the mud and I'm getting tired of it, he is retired now (for good:)) let him on his merry way so we can focus our attention on a new tdF champion (once the contador case is sorted of course:D).

The Feds were not trying to prove it "back then". It's a new investigation.

Lance Armstrong is not "the sport".

As I see it, doping in sport will continue to be a greater problem than it needs to be until doping is treated as a serious criminal offence in all countries with a functioning justice system, and enforced by law with criminal penalties for athletes and all those who assist in the cheating. I'm not sure what the legal position is in the US, now or previously. Therefore, the involvement of the Feds is a positive thing, in my view.

As for the medical doctors who prescribe this stuff, they should be struck off and locked up. Oaths matter.

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

As of yet I have not seen any credible argument as to why any of this matters.

If you believe that Lance doped, and got away with it, then you must agree that he is a role model for cheats. "Do it like Lance and you'll get away with it".

In that context, how can you believe that taking him down doesn't matter?

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

As for the medical doctors who prescribe this stuff, they should be struck off and locked up. Oaths matter.

Completely +1 on this....

nak

ROK ON wrote: »

As of yet I have not seen any credible argument as to why any of this matters.
Concentrate on current doping (there are plenty of cases).

What is so different between the alleged doping of LA versus the doping of Anquetil, Coppi, Merkx, Hinault, Kelly,Moser etc etc.
The fact that blood and EPO doping is more successful is complete BS.
The intent to cheat is the same. Cycling fans on many websites can hate the likes of LA, Vino, Basso, Valverde et al and yet hero worship the greats of yesteryear.

Cheating is cheating. I don't like it. I understand why it happens and I am of the opinion that it is part of the historical fabric of the sport.

I think efforts would be better expended if authorities concentrated on reducing the incentives to cheat.

I agree, it is hypocritical to idolise one rider and hate another for doing the same thing. Hopefully the majority of riders today are clean and the sport can move on from there.

-Trek-

Lumen wrote: »

Lance Armstrong is not "the sport

I understand what your saying and agree, but what I was saying earlier about dragging the sport through the mud, if you were to take todays student protest for example and only 1 person was going to cause trouble, the media will only focus on that 1 persons actions even though the other 99.99999% were having a peaceful protest. But it is that 1 persons actions that reflect badly on the whole demonstration.

I don't know if what I'm trying to say makes any sence to you its just the way I see it and the way the media tends to work.

ROK ON

Tautology and irrelevant imho.

I think that doping exists due to a combination of being culturally acceptable in the sport, very little legal enforcement (as you point out), lenient sanctions and finally race designs that encourage doping.

Part of the issue is that when originaly conceived the tour and giro where seen as circus like spectacles of human endurance, fitness, madness. They have become sporting contests so we expect them to be fair.

They are not. I do t think that athletes enter the sport to dope. That they do is down to a desire to win, survive, fit in or obey orders.
I don't believe that LA or any proven doper is a role model per se.

I would wish to see doping become less of a part of the future fabric of the sport. Thatwill IMO require efforts from the riders, authorities, legal and criminal justice systems and race organisers.


My point is that for various reasons LA followed allegedly a path practiced by most of the champions of the sport.

Lumen wrote: »

If you believe that Lance doped, and got away with it, then you must agree that he is a role model for cheats. "Do it like Lance and you'll get away with it".

In that context, how can you believe that taking him down doesn't matter?

RobFowl

Trekmad wrote: »

I understand what your saying and agree, but what I was saying earlier about dragging the sport through the mud, if you were to take todays student protest for example and only 1 person was going to cause trouble, the media will only focus on that 1 persons actions even though the other 99.99999% were having a peaceful protest. But it is that 1 persons actions that reflect badly on the whole demonstration.

I don't know if what I'm trying to say makes any sence to you its just the way I see it and the way the media tends to work.

I suppose I'd feel the same way. Here we have a long drawn out process which will at best convict Tailwind sports of using Government money to fund a doping program. Also they're hoping LA will lie under oath...

At the end we'll still have a situation where the UCI/Wada cannot sanction him and the results of his TDF's will stand (unless you want Ullrich/Virenque et al to be awarded them retrospectively). And no-one will alter their opinion either way.

I am in the guilty as sin camp FWIW.

Lumen

Trekmad wrote: »

I understand what your saying and agree, but what I was saying earlier about dragging the sport through the mud, if you were to take todays student protest for example and only 1 person was going to cause trouble, the media will only focus on that 1 persons actions even though the other 99.99999% were having a peaceful protest. But it is that 1 persons actions that reflect badly on the whole demonstration.

I don't know if what I'm trying to say makes any sence to you its just the way I see it and the way the media tends to work.

I understand completely, but we have justice on the one hand, and various flavours of public and media idiocy on the other.

Once concerns about idiocy management start polluting the justice system you don't get very good justice.

Pragmatism has its place, in the sense of picking investigative targets that are either easy to secure convictions or high profile enough to act as a deterrent to others. Lance is the latter.

But attempting to "protect the sport" by "letting it go" is slippery slope thinking, and the sort of conflict of interest which constantly dogs the UCI. You don't protect the sport by protecting cheats.

Quigs Snr

From a cycling perspective, I think it damages the perception of the sport further if he gets caught. You can say that it damages it more if he gets away with it morally but I think the image of the sport is more important right now however and efforts would be best spent catching current dopers.

For me, like him or loathe him (I am not a fan, was at one time a decade ago but no more), he is a source of inspiration to many cancer sufferers and having seen what that can do to people and how a little hope and inspiration can sometimes help, I would not like to see him get caught. Not for his sake, but for the sake of those who believe in him and need a story like his to believe in. I think he hides behind it too though and I can't stand him for that.

Is cycling more important than what he represents to probably thousands of cancer sufferers ? Not for me. And it's a pity, because under any other circumstances I would like him to be exposed, purely for the purpose of having a fresh start. I don't hold the actual doping against him, it was so widespread that it would be easier to single out the clean riders I fear. I firmly believe that for the last 20 years the best doper has won the tour with the next 30 best dopers right behind him. (Possible exception of Sastre who was possibly reasonably clean relatively speaking towards the latter part of his career).

Chips Lovell

I think it's important the investigation go ahead. If what is alleged about him is correct then its one of the biggest sporting frauds in a sport littered with them. Deciding to let sleeping dogs lie simply lets other dopers know that if you manage to cover it up enough, you can exit the sport with your reputation intact. The message we need to be giving out is that whether its now or ten years from now, sooner or later you are going to pay for what you do.

ROK ON wrote: »

What is so different between the alleged doping of LA versus the doping of Anquetil, Coppi, Merkx, Hinault, Kelly,Moser etc etc. The fact that blood and EPO doping is more successful is complete BS.

Blood doping is of a vastly different order of magnitude to stimulants etc. It has the potential to transform ordinary riders into champions, something other drugs never really could do.

Trekmad wrote: »

I understand what your saying and agree, but what I was saying earlier about dragging the sport through the mud...

Quigs Snr wrote: »

From a cycling perspective, I think it damages the perception of the sport further if he gets caught. You can say that it damages it more if he gets away with it morally but I think the image of the sport is more important right now however and efforts would be best spent catching current dopers....

Investigations aren't dragging cycling through the mud. The sport has done that to itself.

nak

el tonto wrote: »

Blood doping is of a vastly different order of magnitude to stimulants etc. It has the potential to transform ordinary riders into champions, something other drugs never really could do.

Does it make that big a difference? I've heard the whole donkey -thoroughbred argument lots of times.

goldencleric

ROK ON wrote: »

As of yet I have not seen any credible argument as to why any of this matters.
Concentrate on current doping (there are plenty of cases).

What is so different between the alleged doping of LA versus the doping of Anquetil, Coppi, Merkx, Hinault, Kelly,Moser etc etc.
.

Doping is Euro, Lance is not

Karagesh

It's not what you know; it's what you can prove.

I cant see there being a new development so long after the alleged event. Why don't they just test some of his B samples with new techniques. If they cant get a positive sample that doesn't have an explanation, what's the point really. He was tested that many times there must be something dodgy somewhere. I am no big Lance fan or an expert but that's how I see it.

Funkyzeit

nak wrote: »

Does it make that big a difference? I've heard the whole donkey -thoroughbred argument lots of times.

...because it's true. You simply can't compare the effect of stimulants on cyclists to the effect of erythropoietin based drugs on cyclists.

Some of the nerds more informed on here can give you stats on how much your hematocrit levels can be raised with Epo/Cera etc

paddymacsporran

This federal investigation into doping is because US Postal are a public funded body, and they were sponsors of the team - If there was a systematic doping programme, it was funded by the public purse therefore needs to be investigated. If proven, whoever was involved will get the rap.

All USPS riders are under investigation, this is not just about the yellow cock-ringed one. This investigation is the best chance we have of getting a clean sport, purely down to the publicity it is generating because of the LA connection.

and EPO? raises performance by 10 to 15% I believe

Karagesh

paddymacsporran wrote: »

This federal investigation into doping is because US Postal are a public funded body, and they were sponsors of the team - If there was a systematic doping programme, it was funded by the public purse therefore needs to be investigated. If proven, whoever was involved will get the rap.

All USPS riders are under investigation, this is not just about the yellow cock-ringed one. This investigation is the best chance we have of getting a clean sport, purely down to the publicity it is generating because of the LA connection.

and EPO? raises performance by 10 to 15% I believe

That all makes sense.

It will be interesting to see what happens when they follow the money.

Lumen

paddymacsporran wrote: »

and EPO? raises performance by 10 to 15% I believe

From what I understand, EPO effectiveness varies a lot from person to person. Which is a big issue, because it destroys the "they were all doping so it was a level playing field" argument.

nak

I am just curious, I know what EPO does from a pharmacological point of view, just wasn't sure how much of a performance gain an athlete at that level would get from using it. Same goes for blood transfusions. I work in the pharmaceutical industry but am not well versed on sports science.

Lumen

nak wrote: »

I am just curious, I know what EPO does from a pharmacological point of view, just wasn't sure how much of a performance gain an athlete at that level would get from using it. Same goes for blood transfusions. I work in the pharmaceutical industry but am not well versed on sports science.

Anecdotally...

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/david-millar-interview

Schmalz And what was the effect of it? I don't think it's like you inject something and suddenly you're like Popeye...

Millar You wouldn't notice it unless you were a high level athlete, an elite athlete. And if you're an elite athlete, it makes a big difference.

Schmalz And then in training it was a big difference?

Millar All you do is, all that happens is, let's say you're riding up the climb and breathing really hard. - Iit really hurts. Once you do EPO, same sensation: I – it really hurts, but you can keep going. You keep going. A five k climb, where you're like "It really hurts!" I, it still really hurts when you're on EPO, but you get ten ks. And then you can recover immediately, boom, do it again the next climb. It sustains your maximal effort.

Chips Lovell

Karagesh wrote: »

It's not what you know; it's what you can prove.

I cant see there being a new development so long after the alleged event. Why don't they just test some of his B samples with new techniques. If they cant get a positive sample that doesn't have an explanation, what's the point really. He was tested that many times there must be something dodgy somewhere. I am no big Lance fan or an expert but that's how I see it.

There is something new here. A former team mate came out for the first time and said Armstrong and the team were doping. And I'm sure the Feds would probably retest if they had access to the samples. But they don't belong to them.

nak wrote: »

I am just curious, I know what EPO does from a pharmacological point of view, just wasn't sure how much of a performance gain an athlete at that level would get from using it. Same goes for blood transfusions. I work in the pharmaceutical industry but am not well versed on sports science.

To add to Lumen's post, here's a layman's experience (whole piece is fascinating though):

Within three weeks, my hematocrit level had risen to 48.3. By this time, my testosterone levels had shot up to 900 nanograms per decaliter, from a previous mark of 280. (My starting level was just below normal.) My HGH had increased only slightly, which Dr. Jones found unusual. He upped my HGH dosage to 1.2 IU a day, speculating that the long hours I spent training might be keeping the level down.

Despite these measurements, I remained skeptical about all the drugs until March 29, when I rode an event along the central coast of California, the Solvang Double Century, at what for me was a fast and hard pace, finishing in around 11.5 hours. About ten hours in, it dawned on me that something was definitely happening. Sure, I'd been training hard, but I'd done enough of that to know what to expect. All around me were riders—good, strong riders—who looked as worn out as you'd expect after ten hours in the saddle. I was tired, but I felt curiously strong, annoyingly talkative and fresh, eager to hammer the last 40 miles. The last time I'd ridden 200 miles, I felt awful the next day, like I'd been hit by a truck. After the Solvang race I woke up and felt hardly a touch of soreness. I also felt like I could easily ride another 200, and I realized that I'd entered another world, the realm of instant recovery. I'll be frank: It was a reassuring kind of world, and I could see why people might want to stay there.

ROK ON

@Tonto. The fact that EPO is significantly more successful in boosting an athletes performance versus say steroids or stimulants is irrelevant.
The previous generation of doping cyclists took the drugs that they believed offered the best impact on their performance available at the time.
It is not a stretch to suggest that had EPO existed then Coppi or Simpson would have used it.

LA is alleged to have doped using the best available drug at the time. In 10yrs there will more than likely be better drugs or even cybernetics that aid performance. Will this be a more odious form of cheating than EPO use?

Chips Lovell

This piece from Science of Sport is also worth reading.

RobFowl

Lumen wrote: »

Anecdotally...

http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/david-millar-interview

And some evidence based research

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abstract/2000/07000/Effect_of_rhEPO_administration_on_serum_levels_of.9.aspx

Chips Lovell

ROK ON wrote: »

It is not a stretch to suggest that had EPO existed then Coppi or Simpson would have used it.

Of course they would have.

The point is that the EPO is a greater fraud than stimulant use.

Lumen

ROK ON wrote: »

The fact that EPO is significantly more successful in boosting an athletes performance versus say steroids or stimulants is irrelevant.

el tonto wrote: »

The point is that the EPO is a greater fraud than stimulant use.

Stepping away from the cheater as the focus, doping controls are there to serve the clean cyclists (assuming there are any).

EPO and (to a lesser extent) blood doping changed the game by making it impossible for clean cyclists to compete at all.

If clean cyclists cannot compete at all then the sport is about competition between different classes of doper, which isn't a sport most of us would prefer to watch.

Chips Lovell

There's an interview somewhere with Jorg Jaschke after he got caught by Puerto. He was talking about trying to ride clean one year and getting dropped on railway bridges.

nak

Thanks guys, interesting reading, can understand the temptation, but the risks and guilty conscience would definitely outweigh the benefits for me.

I have a friend who raced in a continenal team and he said that he would be dropping guys in training who would come back and kick his ass in races due to doping (mainly HGH and steroids then). It sickened him, the team doctor tried to get him to do it too, he retired instead.

ednwireland

el tonto wrote: »

There's an interview somewhere with Jorg Jaschke after he got caught by Puerto. He was talking about trying to ride clean one year and getting dropped on railway bridges.

yeh but is that the psychological effect of not being on the gear and/or needing to change your training regime / race program to compensate ?

Chips Lovell

ednwireland wrote: »

yeh but is that the psychological effect of not being on the gear and/or needing to change your training regime / race program to compensate ?

I'll experiment on myself next season and report back with the findings.

@RobFowl. Forget you read that.

Funkyzeit

The thing that surprises me most?

This thread is way too civil for a LA/doping thread....

RobFowl

el tonto wrote: »

I'll experiment on myself next season and report back with the findings.

@RobFowl. Forget you read that.

I'll sort you out as long as you don't tell Lumen,,

Lumen

Funkyzeit wrote: »

This thread is way too civil for a LA/doping thread....

RobFowl wrote: »

I'll sort you out as long as you don't tell Lumen,,

I think he's started already - I've heard that pharmacists in Clondalkin have experienced a bit of a run on .

Chips Lovell

Bitch.

Junior

I understand what your saying ROK On, to me it's like the difference between the idea of 'the ordinary decent criminal' and the mob boss. While yes all our 80's hero's dabbled in a bit of criminality no one took to the extent that LA did. A lot of people see him as the moving force behind the systematic doping that was de riguer in 90's. I think most people see him as taking his whole team and juicing them up to the eyeballs, which caused a semi mutally assured destruction escalation of doping. He's seen as the one who took it to the nth degree and even after the Festina scandal he still continued on with it.

The problem as Quigs pointed out as well is that the Cancer survivor and Cyclist are completely integrated, he can't be one without the other and the fact he's traded on both to sell either one at any point means that one will destroy the other if it's brought down. I really absolutely f*ckin hate that, I've had relatives die from it, I've handed a cousin some of his books to read as he was dying to try give him some hope, I rank him up there with those snake oil salesmen for selling false hope.

I do think that this investigation doesn't really have an idea where it's going or what to really target, pulling in people like Popo isn't going to crack any new ground for them to be honest and smacks slightly of desperation.

ROK ON

@Junior. I hadn't considered that point (the introduction of organised doping).
However where I was coming from using a marital analogy. If I head out for a night with then intention of having sex with a woman other than my wife. Then regardless of whether I succeed in getting a hand job, blowjob, no job or even having all night passion with the redhaired lady in Madmen. I have intended to cheat on my wife. The extent of the success of the cheating fails in comparison to the cheating.

Obviously this is a fictional example for if it were true I would have fewer testicles than Lance.

Btw I detest Lance but not for doping. For his enrichment of himself with a charity of IMHO dubious merit. For his treatment of other cyclists.
I hate him for all the bull ****.
However if he doped. I understand why he did it. He did it for the same reason as Merckx.