Mr. Obvious wrote:
Whether that is good or bad is for you to decide. But yes, their ability to investigate and compel testimony is very limited.
Amen!
I would just add that the government investigators in the Lance case got spanked pretty hard by courts for their sketchy investigatory methods.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Link wrote:I should have read the second article before posting. In it the author seems to cover pretty well whether the AMA could become involved to productively further USADA's investigation.
It seems the problem is that USADA (and, many of the other 'ADAs') powers are so circumscribed as to render them essentially toothless. This is a point I think pop pop has made many times on other threads. It's also something that I myself have not fully understood - I guess I was somewhat confused about what happened with Lance; his case seemed to have made USADA appear more powerful than they actually are. All in all, it's no wonder that athletes feel that doping is worth it. The rewards are potentially large, the possibilities of getting caught are small, and the consequences are little.
Unfortunately, because of the ban, we don't have good science on the long-term effects on the health of the athletes who take them (aside, I guess, from speculation regarding Flo Jo or certain NFL linemen's early deaths).
Ugh.
So, in Lance's case, you had a previous arbitration and court filings which were from a private company and civil actions over lots of money. So, there were sworn statements on the record. This was not initiated or investigated by USADA but it helped them immensely.
In addition to that they also had lots and lots of cooperating witnesses. Those cooperating witnesses were all people who admitted to doping. They all rolled on each other. It sounds like USADA has some people cooperating in this, but they are all denying any doping, so nobody is rolling and there is no leverage to use on anybody else.
In the Lance case there were also court filings. It is important to note here that those were not initiated by USADA, but the qui tam case was initiated by Floyd Landis. Not sure if the government would ever have taken that action on their own but they joined it once it had been initiated. Leverage, again.
After all of that, USADA's power over Lance was really onto to suspend him from sporting competitions. They don't have any criminal authority.
I would argue that USADA's authority is a little like the NCAA's authority over amateurism. Their ability to investigate is really limited to current participants and employees. Once an athlete is done competing, they don't have to testify. Third parties, such as agents, family, ec. don't have to testify.
Whether that is good or bad is for you to decide. But yes, their ability to investigate and compel testimony is very limited.
I just wanted to thank you, Link and the others for a very informative and interesting set of posts. I get what's going on a lot better now and understand what to expect from this phase of the investigation, i.e. nothing!
Off topic, but this kind of exchange is what makes this message board worth returning to for a track fan like myself. I hate even to bring them up, but there were times with Semanya threads, with Dr. Tucker making his case (which by the way I agree with) but then others raising posting thoughtful opposing opinions, so I actually felt I was learning something. Then more and more posters started doing things like threatening young female journalists with no cause, and the threads became a stinking cesspool.
I know its the Internet, you have to take the good with the bad, but I always appreciate the good, when experts take the time to post, so thanks again.
If there were one more point I could make based on what I have seen:
More can and should be done by either the US Government, or USATF/USOC to deter doping. It is unfair for those who live and train cleanly to have to lose money and glory to those who cheat, or to have to consider cheating just to keep up with those who already are.
In the world of track, the financial difference between a struggling athlete who has a shoe deal with minor compensation and the top 5 in the country, is significant enough that athletes will be tempted to cheat. For them, what is the worst that can happen once they have jumped the mental hurdle and rationalized their cheating?
The question is, what are the penalties which could be created to deter this behavior?
Criminal penalties (jail time) ?
Permanent bans from the sport ?
Fines ?
I saw some interesting posts earlier about possible jail time. I cannot say that is automatically the answer. But it would be nice to see those who are supposed to be in charge of the governing bodies and our US government have that conversation. Based on the number of positive tests coming out from prior Olympics and the positive findings from investigations into state-run doping programs one thing is clear - this problem has not gone away and it does not seem to have gotten any better, either.
The need to quit playing around and make a preemptive strike against NOPe. Ban all NOPers from the Olympics now. We know they are filthy and are cheating possibly clean athletes out of Olympic Team spots and maybe even medals. Why are they dragging this out? It is much harder to claw back the medals and money than it is to prevent the cheating in the first place. Mo, Rupp, Rowbury and Centro need to be shut down now.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
In addition to that they also had lots and lots of cooperating witnesses. Those cooperating witnesses were all people who admitted to doping. They all rolled on each other. It sounds like USADA has some people cooperating in this, but they are all denying any doping, so nobody is rolling and there is no leverage to use on anybody else.
Sounds like a win for people like Dr Brown. Go to him. He will keep his mouth, and records, shut. Keep your insider pool as small as possible. Run on all the drugs Dr Brown willingly prescribes for you, whether you actually need them or not.
Not quite right wrote:
rojo wrote:I'd love to see doping criminalized for professional sports.
And I'd love to see exactly how that is going to work..
How about something simple. Just as an athlete get a ban, a doctor can get a ban preventing them from treating any athletes who compete. The doctor is free to treat anyone who chooses them, but not competitors. Any athlete who chooses a banned doctor cannot compete, period.
Doping NOPers wrote:
The need to quit playing around and make a preemptive strike against NOPe. Ban all NOPers from the Olympics now. We know they are filthy and are cheating possibly clean athletes out of Olympic Team spots and maybe even medals. Why are they dragging this out? It is much harder to claw back the medals and money than it is to prevent the cheating in the first place. Mo, Rupp, Rowbury and Centro need to be shut down now.
There's this little thing called evidence and due process.
They can't just go around indiscriminately banning people.
Criminal Eyes wrote:
Not quite right wrote:And I'd love to see exactly how that is going to work..
How about something simple. Just as an athlete get a ban, a doctor can get a ban preventing them from treating any athletes who compete. The doctor is free to treat anyone who chooses them, but not competitors. Any athlete who chooses a banned doctor cannot compete, period.
How about something even simpler. Doping is theft. Put the doping cheaters in prison.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Doping NOPers wrote:The need to quit playing around and make a preemptive strike against NOPe. Ban all NOPers from the Olympics now. We know they are filthy and are cheating possibly clean athletes out of Olympic Team spots and maybe even medals. Why are they dragging this out? It is much harder to claw back the medals and money than it is to prevent the cheating in the first place. Mo, Rupp, Rowbury and Centro need to be shut down now.
There's this little thing called evidence and due process.
They can't just go around indiscriminately banning people.
They didn't have any problem banning the Russians, and we know that the NOP is way filthier than them.
How about hauling all the NOPers into a congressional committee and getting their testimony on record? Then lock \'em up when they perjure themselves. Didn\'t this work for Marion?
Pick your doctor wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:In addition to that they also had lots and lots of cooperating witnesses. Those cooperating witnesses were all people who admitted to doping. They all rolled on each other. It sounds like USADA has some people cooperating in this, but they are all denying any doping, so nobody is rolling and there is no leverage to use on anybody else.
Sounds like a win for people like Dr Brown. Go to him. He will keep his mouth, and records, shut. Keep your insider pool as small as possible. Run on all the drugs Dr Brown willingly prescribes for you, whether you actually need them or not.
Yeah, I don't know what the answer is. Can't see a good procedural way to give USADA some sort of authority over medical doctors without running into all sorts of problems and unintended consequences.
Ryan's Interns wrote:
How about hauling all the NOPers into a congressional committee and getting their testimony on record? Then lock 'em up when they perjure themselves. Didn't this work for Marion?
No. She was caught up in a check-kiting scheme and forced to plead.
I honestly don't want congress messing w/ this. Again, the cure is worse than the disease.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Pick your doctor wrote:Sounds like a win for people like Dr Brown. Go to him. He will keep his mouth, and records, shut. Keep your insider pool as small as possible. Run on all the drugs Dr Brown willingly prescribes for you, whether you actually need them or not.
Yeah, I don't know what the answer is. Can't see a good procedural way to give USADA some sort of authority over medical doctors without running into all sorts of problems and unintended consequences.
The answer is to ban Dr Brown as a doctor athletes can use. Dr Brown isn't prevented from practicing, just from prescribing for athletes who choose to compete under WADA's charter. Any athlete found using Dr Brown and hiding it would receive a lifetime ban. Dr Brown is not prevented from practicing which is the right answer.
Thanks for sharing. Brown's counsel made some good points here. The 7 people who released their record are saying they were clean so it's hard to see what that has to do with what USADA is pursuing.This may be like the Lance case in terms of some of the legal / jurisdiction arguments but there does not seem like a lot of substance yet. That's not to say anyone is innocent or not. And the new info referenced is pretty vague.Brown works with lots of people, right? This could be a bit like the Healing Hans situation with lots of people going to one guy. I know people have thoughts about HH too and I don't mean to derail this informative thread.At this point the Aden story looks like it has a lotmore evidence. I look forward to LRC reporting on that if you can get some insights.
LetsRun.com wrote:
The author Steve Horn has recently received an email from Dr. Brown's attorney Joan Bain that is interesting. It said in part:
Joan Bain wrote:Briefly, without going into privileged communications, here are some reasons I believe the allegations in Mr. Bock’s affidavit and USADA’s petition are not true. Before USADA filed this petition, we met with Mr. Bock to find out what USADA wanted to question Dr. Brown about. It went far beyond these seven patients, and specifically included individuals for whom they have no release. They even went so far as to ask Dr. Brown to sign an agreement to appear and testify whenever they called him about anything or anyone they desired. Additionally, there are references in Mr. Bock’s affidavits to statements purportedly made that I know are not true and /or have been disavowed. We determined that Dr. Brown could not answer the questions they wanted to ask because of medical privacy laws. We informed Mr. Bock that was why Dr. Brown could not agree to answer their questions.
Clearly USADA was not interested in the records for those 7 athletes; it already had the records and had for a long time. USADA was not interested in asking questions about those 7 athletes either. USADA interviewed them a long time ago. All of them told USADA that they had not violated the anti-doping rules. This entire matter was a pretext by USADA to try and make Dr. Brown look bad. Notice how the story of a Rule 202 petition in Houston was quickly picked up by the New York Times. Do you think that was an accident? Note the New York Times didn’t run a story when USADA lost. Why is that? The documents in this case are clear. USADA was trying to pull a fast one on the court but fortunately the judge saw through them and denied USADA’s petition.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/sports/baseball/20clemens.htmlMr. Obvious wrote:
Ryan's Interns wrote:How about hauling all the NOPers into a congressional committee and getting their testimony on record? Then lock 'em up when they perjure themselves. Didn't this work for Marion?
No. She was caught up in a check-kiting scheme and forced to plead.
I honestly don't want congress messing w/ this. Again, the cure is worse than the disease.
Marion Jones, who won five track and field medals at the 2000 Summer Olympics, served six months in prison after pleading guilty in 2007 to making false statements to federal authorities about her use of performance-enhancing drugs.
And Roger Clemens got busted for lying to congress about his doping.
Pick your doctor wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:Yeah, I don't know what the answer is. Can't see a good procedural way to give USADA some sort of authority over medical doctors without running into all sorts of problems and unintended consequences.
The answer is to ban Dr Brown as a doctor athletes can use. Dr Brown isn't prevented from practicing, just from prescribing for athletes who choose to compete under WADA's charter. Any athlete found using Dr Brown and hiding it would receive a lifetime ban. Dr Brown is not prevented from practicing which is the right answer.
That seems pretty easy, if it is compliant w/ the WADA code. I know there were some enhanced provisions for support personnel in the newest code, but I am not sure of all the details on there.
Track and field star Marion Jones has met God while serving time for perjury. Jones' fall from public grace in 2007 was highly publicized after she admitted to lying to federal agents about her use of performance enhancing drugs prior to the 2000 Summer Olympics.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-baseball-bonds-idUSKBN0ND2IU20150422ouchies wrote:
Mr. Obvious wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/sports/baseball/20clemens.htmlNo. She was caught up in a check-kiting scheme and forced to plead.
I honestly don't want congress messing w/ this. Again, the cure is worse than the disease.
Marion Jones, who won five track and field medals at the 2000 Summer Olympics, served six months in prison after pleading guilty in 2007 to making false statements to federal authorities about her use of performance-enhancing drugs.
And Roger Clemens got busted for lying to congress about his doping.
Clemens was charged but acquited.
Bonds was convicted of similar charges to Jones but cleared on appeal.
Jones never appeared before congress. She lied to federal investigators. She only really pleaded guilty because they had her dead to rights on the check-kiting scheme.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/01/11/jones.doping/A statement released by the U.S. attorney's office also outlined Jones's complicity in a multimillion-dollar check-fraud scheme. The money-laundering plot involved Olympic gold medalists Timothy Montgomery and Steve Riddick and more than a dozen others who attempted to defraud numerous banks by altering and counterfeiting checks. Jones originally claimed to have no knowledge of the scheme.
Mr. Obvious wrote: Yeah, I don't know what the answer is. Can't see a good procedural way to give USADA some sort of authority over medical doctors without running into all sorts of problems and unintended consequences.[/quote]
Pick your doctor wrote: The answer is to ban Dr Brown as a doctor athletes can use. Dr Brown isn't prevented from practicing, just from prescribing for athletes who choose to compete under WADA's charter. Any athlete found using Dr Brown and hiding it would receive a lifetime ban. Dr Brown is not prevented from practicing which is the right answer.[/quote]
Mr. Obvious wrote: That seems pretty easy, if it is compliant w/ the WADA code. I know there were some enhanced provisions for support personnel in the newest code, but I am not sure of all the details on there.[/quote]
The way it would be compliant under the WADA code is that WADA is looking for verification that what the athlete says they taking is backup with a full medical report, and not just a simple letter. Prescriptions, prescription renewals, allowed dosages, all become part of confirming a TUE is actually required, and under what conditions it should be allowed.
To tighten the noose, a second, independent, medical confirmation of the proposed TUE would be required.
Exactly. The seven that released their records reported to not doping. In fact, not one single athlete, including Kara Goucher, have admitted, reported, or been found to have doped. This seems to be lost on everyone.
1. Now, have athletes seen Dr. Brown? Absolutely. Many, many of these athletes come from groups outside of the NOP. There are athletes in Schumacher's group and Wetmores group who have seen Dr. Brown. It's my understanding that many, if not all the current NOP athletes besides Rupp and possibly Farah (the l-carnitine thing), have never seen Dr. Brown.
2. Have athletes possibly been placed on thyroid medication when they didn't need it? Possibly, but that is unproven.
3. If they didn't need this medication, would it help performance if they took it? No, not likely and Steve Magness, although not a physician or reputable scientist (yet), has attested to this. WADA's medical scientist have looked at this as well, and found no performance benefit. It is NOT a banned drug and it does not require a TUE. Again, something lost on most journalists and people who visit these boards.
4. Back to the l-carnitine thing. Not a PED and no TUE required.
It's fair to suspect the NOP and not like them and root for their demise. However, if you assume there are cheaters out there, you also need to assume there are liars out there. People always want to bring up the Lance Armstrong case, but let me also remind you of the Duke lacrosse case....