Sunday, January 6, 2013

David Howman: Statement Analysis

The only predictor of future behavior is the record of the past.  If, for example, a man has assaulted two of his girlfriends, should his new girlfriend ignore his history?
If someone has been violent, or has lied repeatedly, should this be ignored?   When something is revealed as self-serving, logic is often discounted.  

When JFK dealt with the Cuban Missile Crisis, there were those who said that no one would risk killing millions of people in a nuclear war.  This was to discount those still in control of the Soviet empire, who, with a stroke of the pen, had killed millions of people through starvation, and who, with their own hands, personally, killed men and women.  JFK knew what he was dealing with  by judging (discerning) information from the past. 

When Ronald Reagan called them the "evil empire", which eventually led to the end of the Cold War, he knew who he was dealing with by understanding (judging/discerning) the past. 

The past is what we have to go on when it comes to discernment for the future.  Shall an alcoholic be given a job as a late night bartender, simply because one does not want to "judge" the past, the repercussions often spread far more than what may be predicted, and could have been avoided.  

This is why an attorney was asked, "Would you let Casey Anthony babysit your grandchild?" while refusing to answer.  

David Howman's quote is in italics. 

Agency Could Gain if Armstrong Confesses

Stefano Rellandini/Reuters
Lance Armstrong’s reason for a possible public admission to using banned drugs might be to restore his eligibility.
During his battle with the United States Anti-Doping Agency last year, Lance Armstrong went to extreme lengths to disparage the agency, a quasi-governmental organization charged with policing banned drug use in Olympic sports.
He called the organization a kangaroo court that flagrantly violated the Constitution and used taxpayer dollars to conduct witch hunts. He called its chief executive, Travis Tygart, an antidoping zealot with a vendetta against him even as the agency released more than 1,000 pages of evidence in October laying out the case that Armstrong had doped and had been a part of a sophisticated doping scheme on his cycling teams.
The agency said Armstrong, a cancer survivor who had inspired millions fighting the disease, lied when he said he had never doped. It also said he destroyed the lives of people in cycling who dared to say he had used banned drugs.
Yet within the last month, Armstrong’s representatives reached out to Tygart to arrange a meeting between Armstrong and the agency. The goal of that meeting was to find out if a confession could mitigate Armstrong’s lifetime ban from Olympic sports, according to several people with knowledge of the situation. Those people did not want their names published because it would jeopardize their access to sensitive information on the matter.
Tygart welcomed the invitation, and that meeting occurred last month, one person familiar with the situation said. In the end, no matter how much Tygart and Armstrong had fought each other, they still need each other. Armstrong, 41, would like to resume competing in triathlons and running events that are sanctioned by organizations that follow the World Anti-Doping Code. Tygart wants to know how Armstrong so skillfully eluded testing positive for banned drugs for nearly a decade.
Tim Herman, Armstrong’s Austin-based lawyer, said that talks with Tygart and the antidoping agency are not on the table. Armstrong has not met with Tygart, Herman said.
Tygart, who declined to comment, has said in the past that he is interested in hearing from athletes who doped because they could lead him to the coaches, agents, doctors, team owners or other sports personnel who organized or encouraged doping.
“Mr. Armstrong did not act alone,” the antidoping agency wrote in its report on Armstrong. “He acted with a small army of enablers, including doping doctors, drug smugglers and others within the sport and on his team.”
If Tygart is able to gather incriminating information about those people and build cases against them that could bar them from sports, he could deal a serious blow to the doping that has been enmeshed in the culture of cycling for more than 100 years. Though 11 of Armstrong’s former teammates provided some information about those enablers, it is very likely that Armstrong — who kept much of the doping secretive, according to some of his teammates — knows much more.
“I think it’s very valuable to them to know exactly how Lance avoided getting caught and how tests were evaded,” said Jonathan Vaughters, a former Armstrong teammate, a vocal antidoping proponent and a current co-owner of the Garmin-Sharp professional cycling team. “They need someone on the inside to tell them how it was done, and not just anyone on the inside, someone on the inside who was very influential. Someone like Lance.”
Vaughters said that a confession by Armstrong might encourage other riders to say what they knew and encourage a “truth and reconciliation” effort, in which riders would not be penalized for confessing to doping if they detailed how they got away with it. That effort could educate authorities so those entities could bolster drug testing and close any loopholes, Vaughters said.
“I feel like Lance’s confession could push that effort forward dramatically,” he said. “Right now, we almost have to destroy the sport in order to save it.”
The antidoping agency has already brought cases against five of Armstrong’s former colleagues. Michele Ferrari, an Italian doctor and Armstrong’s trainer, and Luis García del Moral, a team doctor, have accepted lifetime bans. The three others who had worked on Armstrong’s teams have requested that their cases go to arbitration: Johan Bruyneel, the team manager, who remains a powerful influence in the sport; Pepe Martí, a team trainer; and Pedro Celaya, a team doctor

If Armstrong gives an admission to the antidoping agency, his testimony might help the agency win those cases. It also might help the agency find out who, if anyone, in the hierarchy of cycling was involved in the cover-up.

At least two of Armstrong’s former teammates have claimed that the International Cycling Union, cycling’s worldwide governing body, made the results of a failed drug test at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland disappear for Armstrong. Only Armstrong might be able to say if that is true.
David Howman, the director general of the World Anti-Doping Agency, said he hoped to have the opportunity to speak with Armstrong about any doping that Armstrong may have done. He might have the opportunity to do that sooner than he thinks.
Armstrong would like to speak with Howman in the coming weeks, several people with knowledge of the situation said. Herman said Armstrong had not contacted the antidoping agency.
Howman, who is on vacation in New Zealand, said it would be “nonsensical” for him to ignore an invitation just because Armstrong had criticized antidoping officials so harshly and publicly.
I’m prepared to talk to anybody if it’s helpful in the fight against doping in sports,” Howman said. “I don’t believe that you should judge anybody from the past.”
When obvious illogic is used, we often find the distancing language of the 2nd person, "you" in a statement.  He does not say that he does not believe he should judge anyone from the past, but that "you" should not.  
The past is the only predictor of violence, abuse, deception and other harmful intent upon others.  
Armstrong destroyed lives with his lies; yet here is a public olive branch as if to accept whatever Armstrong may offer for the 'good' of the sport.  Since he has maligned and lied repeatedly, will the lack of judgment and discernment mean more harm for others in the sport?  If Armstrong agrees to accuse others, should he be believed?  If Armstrong has acted out of self interest his entire career, should another motive be now assigned?
He added that he could not speculate how or if Armstrong’s lifetime ban would change if Armstrong confessed. It would depend on what Armstrong said and if his information could lead to the prosecution of others.
The World Anti-Doping Code, the rules to which Olympic sports adhere, says athletes who provide “substantial assistance” to antidoping authorities in a doping investigation could receive up to a 75 percent reduction of punishment.
Athletes like the cyclist Joe Papp, who tested positive once, then was later caught distributing performance-enhancing drugs, should have received a lifetime ban for their second offense. Instead, he received eight years after helping the antidoping agency and federal law enforcement build cases on people involved in doping.
Papp now gives speeches about the dangers of doping.
Whether Armstrong will make that drastic of a turn is unclear. Several legal cases stand between him and his confession, several people familiar with the situation say.
But he and Tygart may have taken the first ste



John Mc Gowan said...

I believe this is just the tip of the iceberg,there will be many other cyclist quaking in their spandex..

Trigger said...

If all the cyclist's come forward and state that they are all taking performance enhancement drugs, then Lance won't have to say, "Everyone else is doing it."

He will be justified as keeping in step with the other athletes and they will have a case for lifting the ban on the drugs that he and the others used.

I think that his confession will be a stage to lift the ban on certain drugs and justify his actions. He will then be given back his good standing status because he was justified.

Anonymous said...

Then I'd have to say that Lance Armstrong is treading on some very dangerous waters! If there's a chance he might divulge his sources and their secrets, then he's a good as a dead man walking.

Surely he knows that drug suppliers, dealers, and sources don't just sit idly by and wait for their peon suppliers and users destroy them. Others have met with a mysterious sad fate way before Lance Armstrong came on the scene. Watch your step Lance!

Anonymous said...

Trigger, I'm surprised at you. You sound like you are justyfing these illegal drugs in the sports world and are all for excusing them, but it'll never happen.

You honestly think Lance can justify his actions and that he will be given back his good standing status? You've GOT to be kidding yourself!

It least I certainly hope you are wrong.

Nonetheless, I think Lance will wind up a dead man before his "confession" that implicates others, who was involved, and how and where he/they got their drugs. There's a lot of people involved in this; many dopers have died for a lot less.

Dealers/suppliers do NOT play these games; waiting for snitches to rat them out. I think Lance better keep denying, stay in hiding and keep his stupid mouth shut!

Trigger said...

Hi Anon,

I hope that I am wrong, also.

I don't believe that Lance Armstrong ever feared his "supplier." He could have gotten his drugs in any country where it is prescribed or given by a doctor.

He could have had it delivered by mail to any address he chose.

Just think about how effective Lance's endorsement coupled with his peers, would be to the manufacturer of his performance enhancement drugs if the ban was lifted.

Anonymous said...

Oh Trigger. Be realistic hon. This isn't the way it works in the shady underbelly of the drug world.

Tania Cadogan said...

If he should succeed and manage tolie i mean persuade them he is a reformed man i wonder how many athletes would compete against him?
Would they refuse to race against him given he is a proven doper?
I know i wouldn't, i couldn't and wouldn't trust him as far as i could throw him.
I wouldn't trust him to tell the whole truth in regards to how he managed to beat the testers.
Winning is everything to him, win at all costs and if i were him i would keep something back which would allow me to dope without being caught and thus win.
Money may play a part in why he cheated especially given the huge amounts from sponsorships and endorsements. Personally i think his goal was to be first, to be the winner.
This is why i think he sued, threatened to sue, defamed, demeaned and generally ruined the lives of any who stood up to him.
He knew his vicitms often didn't have a lot of money and he spent millions in his quest to silence those who spoke the truth.
It wasn't about money it was about winning, it was about power, it was about control.
He literally does have a one track mind, to succeed at everything and anything he puts his mind to.

Should he get allowed back into competing sooner or later, especially if he doesn't win, he will revert back to cheating, it is now a part of who he is.

Lance armstrong doesn't do second best, he won't allow it, it is not acceptable, he will not allow himself to be seen as second rate, second best, a has been.

It wouldn't surprise me if he were to race and win then announce his retirement.
He would be cocking a snoot at the authorities, he would be saying i am still the best, i don't need to cheat to win,i will retire at the top on my terms.
He is a narcissist.

Anonymous said...

Kerrect Hobnob, he's all that and more! But I honestly don't think he'll ever get the chance to race again. Based on what? Does he have even one supporter left that could make a positive difference in his life? Don't think so.

Trigger said...

I don't believe that Lance Armstrong operated in the under belly of the drug world.

I believe that he had access to the finest pharmacy drugs that the world has to offer.

Anonymous said...

Nearly ALL illegal and illicit drug trade either originates or winds up in the underbelly of the drug world, Trigger, frequently with forged prescriptions and/or faked medical records. One way or another they are all illegal transactions unless prescribed by a licensed physican with proper medical justification and supervision for a particilar ailment that requires their use.

Even when a licensed physician purchases legal prescription drugs for his offices and swallows them himself, and is unable to legally account for who he/she dispensed them too, THAT is illegal. Nor can any licensed physician just wily-nily hand them out to his friends without being able to medically justify it, or sell them; that too is illegal.

Even if Lance might have "had access to the finest pharmacy drugs that the world has to offer", he STILL obtained them illegally and it was illegal for his pharmacy or physician(s) to give them to him without proper documentation and licensed physician supervision, who were themselves approved for supplying these drugs to Lance.