Talk:United States Anti-Doping Agency

Controversy section required?

In light of the allegations made in relation to the LaTasha Jenkins case, as illustrated in "USADA v. Jenkins: You Can't Win When You Beat a Monopoly" among others, I feel a controversy section is long overdue. This journal article may be a good starting point source: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/drlj/vol10/iss1/5/ (download link in top-right corner). For hopefully obvious reasons the current Lance Armstrong proceedings would have to be excluded, but as it currently stands this article is giving a very one-sided picture of USADA. Any takers? WelshDaveRyan (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Armstrong just quit fighting the charges against him by the USADA and refuses to acknowledge their authority to take away his titles. That issue should be dealt with here somewhere. The Tour De France is not an Olympic event. 108.132.222.240 (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)David

I agree. As written this page reads like a press release written by the United States Anti-Doping Agency. There is no list of, or biographical information on the people running the agency, nothing about how anyone came to work for the agency, nothing about the organizational structure of the agency. There should at least be a board of directors. What is their source of funding, and what is their annual budget? How many people work for the agency? Qwy47 (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The article should be about USADA and their noteworthy activities, not based on whether editors agree with the USADA and any of their activities, their form of organization, or their public outreach and transparency. That they have an ongoing issue with attempting to prove that Lance Armstrong doped to win races is noteworthy, but language suggesting that Armstrong is a victim of their zealotry is POV and biased. --Born2flie (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The form of ourganization, public outreach, and transparancy ABSOLUTELY should be part of the article. It is a literal description of the agency, which is at the most basic level one of the points of an encyclopedia. At the first level the agency is associated with its noteworthy activity. The next level is to describe how it achieves that activity, I.E. the information mentioned above.

20:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:C157:0:201:2EFF:FE31:4AFF (talk)

I disagree that an article highlighting "Corrupt Practices" and focused on Lance Armstrong is POV. The article is well-cited and contains objectively verifiable information. Further, the accusations of zeolotry are based on public accusations from public officials such as a US District Court judge. Consequently, the information is "noteworthy" as requestd by Born2flie. Rather than delete the section "Corrupt Practices," I encourage a conversation first. 99.117.61.154 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no basis at all for a heading called "Corrupt Practices". There is no substance in the sources to merit this heading. The quote from Judge Sam Sparks is incorrect. He has NOT stated that the USADA pursues investigations into sports figures "... acting according to less noble motives." [6] One of those victims is Lance Armstrong, etc" All he has done in http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrong.pdf is cast some doubts on the motives of USADA in the Armstrong case. There is no mention at all of the ´pursues investigations into sports figures´ attribution. The outcome of the court case by Armstrong is that USADA has full competence in this case and that there are sufficient rules in the arbitration process of USADA and the appeal possibilities to warrant a due process. This page should be unlocked and that paragraph rewritten under a more neutral heading like ´Controversy´. Currently this is the opposite of encyclopedia material as notes and quotes are used for abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.82.178.34 (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

God, I hope I am doing this properly. To not include the controversy section would be to deny the only reason why 99% of the people are looking for this page--Lance Armstrong. And, there is concern out there that: 1. This is a vendetta against Armstrong, primarily to give the USADA some air of legitimacy, and 2.)Whether or not they have any more authority over the Tour de France titles than Wikipedia does. Just because a group of people form a private agency that gets recognized by Congress doesn't really mean squat. Congress recognizes Major League Baseball--but that doesn't mean that the MLB can strip the winners of the 2012 Japanese baseball World Series of their title. In short, in order for the American Doping Agency to strip Lance Armstrong of his titles, not even Lance Armstrong could have given them that authority--only the Tour de France people could have granted them that authority. (Note: I just reviewed this and it is not showing my name/date. I do not know how to add that.)

Agreed, USADA legitimacy is a key issue that needs to be addressed. Also, a better fact-based description of what kind of organization is this is needed. Many in the public and the media assume this is a US government agency, it is NOT. The title of the article and the content of the article tended to support this misguided view. There are two sides to this story as even the UCI does not understand where the USADA jurisdiction comes from. However recent edits seem to provide better balance and context. Thanks for locking the article for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:5C00:65:F521:4E2F:2221:B54F (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above that "Corrupt Practices" is an inappropriate header. This section should be revised to be consistent with a Wikipedia "Controversies" section and relocated (There was such a section in the article on the evening of August 24, 2012). The USADA legitimacy and scope of authority should be documented. For example: The USADA was recognized by Congress in 2001 yet the USADA asserts authority over titles awarded prior to that recognition. This is an organization with a great deal of power over professional athletes and their livelihood. Because of the potential for abuse; the transparency or lack thereof within the USADA is worthy of discussion. Qwy47 (talk) 20:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

Recent events have obviously taken their toll here. Lance Armstrong is referred to as a 'victim' of the USADA, and one of the headings refers to the 'alleged independence' of the group. All very loaded. -- Ncsaint (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ncsaint, your comments are not factual. First, Lance Armstrong was "stripped" of his titles without due process and the USADA's role in this matter was questioned by a US District Court Judge. Second, the USADA is not an agency of the federal or any state government, but a self-appointed watchdog. Finally, the article that you deleted was well sourced. 99.117.61.154 (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Errrrrr, what facts are you disputing? I made some factual claims about what was in the text of the article, which were based on direct quotes. I did claim that the language was loaded. Are you disputing that? And what did I delete? (Spoiler alert: nothing). -- Ncsaint (talk) 03:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever read such loaded opinion in a Wikipedia article. Given that it now has main page profile in ITN, this article should be what wikipedia expects: NPOV and facts driven. Propose removal of "corrupt practices" section until a neutral phrasing can be agreed here. Kevin McE (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

At issue is that many Sports organizations don't support USDADA, it there should be a section that speaks more to that, and the fact that USA Cycling and UCI don't support USDADA, yet USDADA is going after one of it's members outside the statute of limitations should very well be portrayed in an article about USDADA as a controversy. The very fact that you list what organizations do look to them gives the need to point out more clearly who does not, and what the organization is doing to other organizations. I would have also liked to see something discussing the fact that blood and urine samples had been taken from Lance repeatedly, and only twice has anything been found, which was around the date of Lance's cancer issue, and was found to be lacking in accuracy (the other samples since more than one is taken for backups did not show the same findings). I am 100% for preventing cheating, but going after someone just because you don't think he could have achieved something without cheating is not neutral. User:Mark Kern — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.255.134 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Any sport that is aligned to the IOC has no choice but to recognise USADA and every other NADO recognised by WADA: there is no question of supporting or not supporting. It is not for an encyclopaedia to speculate on the motives of a regulatory body for regulated as it is charged to do. Kevin McE (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I would like to include this information, boiled down, but someone named MaxSem has threatened to block me if I do because it is "non-encyclopedic". From http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/national/US-doping-agency-erases-Lance-Armstrongs-titles_64917455 starting at the seventh paragraph:

---

USADA said Friday it expects cycling's governing body to take similar action, but the International Cycling Union was measured in its response, saying it first wanted a full explanation of why Armstrong should relinquish Tour titles he won from 1999 through 2005.

The Amaury Sport Organization, which runs the world's most prestigious cycling race, said it would not comment until hearing from the UCI and USADA. The U.S. agency contends the cycling body is bound by the World Anti-Doping Code to strip Armstrong of one of the most incredible achievements in sports.

Armstrong, who retired a year ago and turns 41 next month, said Thursday he would no longer challenge USADA and declined to exercise his last option by entering arbitration. He denied again that he ever took banned substances in his career, calling USADA's investigation a "witch hunt" without any physical evidence.

USADA chief executive Travis Tygart described the investigation as a battle against a "win-at-all-cost culture," adding that the UCI was "bound to recognize our decision and impose it."

"They have no choice but to strip the titles under the code," he said.

That would leave Greg LeMond as the only American to win the Tour de France, having done so in 1986, 1989 and 1990.

LeMond did not immediately respond to messages requesting comment left through his attorneys and friends.

Armstrong on Friday sent a tweet about his plans to race in Aspen, but did not comment directly on the sanctions.

The UCI and USADA have engaged in a turf war over who should prosecute allegations against Armstrong. The UCI even backed Armstrong's failed legal challenge to USADA's authority, and it cited the same World Anti-Doping Code in saying that it wanted to hear more from the U.S. agency.

"As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case, the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision" explaining the action taken, the Switzerland-based organization said in a statement. It said legal procedures obliged USADA to fulfill this demand in cases "where no hearing occurs."

If Tour de France officials follow USADA's lead and announce that Armstrong has been stripped of his titles, Jan Ullrich could be promoted to champion in three of those years. Ullrich was stripped of his third-place finish in the 2005 Tour and retired from racing two years later after being implicated in another doping scandal.

---

What is clear form this is Lance Amrmstrong was NOT stripped of his titles, as the two organizations which could have done so, the UCI and Tour de France governing body still consider Armstong the winner of the race. Instead, the USADA with some limited authority over the Olympics, has now claimed more power than it has.

The simple fact is if the USADA "expects" the UIC to follow its lead, and the UIC is saying it has yet to be convinced that Lance Armstrong should lose his titles, then Lance Armstron has not lost his titles. Yet I can't put this nugget of info into the USADA Controversy section because MaxSem doesn't consider it encyclopedic, without risking being banned.