Talk:United States Anti-Doping Agency

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joe Gazz84.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

• I'm not sure I agree with the outright removal of the controversy, but the request edit certainly doesn't seem relevant anymore, so I'm closing it. Corporate Minion 16:21, 14 September 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.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosgrove 17:50, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

I wish people would try to inform themselves before they post such accusations. Cycling, as an Olympic sport, is bound by the World Anti-doping Code; the World Anti-doping code places authority for results management in the hands of whichever NADO uncovers breaches of the code. Thus USADA is competent in this case. The UCI can ask them to explain their decisions, and has a right to demand such an explanation before acting where there has not been a review procedure (which Armstrong has prevented in this case), but the only way it can not act on the findings is if it gets the CAS to judge that USADA has been in error. And USADA's decision is not about the Tour de France, it is about every race Armstrong has participated in since August 1998: that happens to include Tours de France, butthere is more than one bike race a year. Kevin McE (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crosgrove (talk • contribs) 19:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the article already says that the USADA considers the results null, and that the UCI is reserving judgement until it sees the evidence. Which is the jist of what you are proposing, without all the quotations and commentary. Much more than we have would be recentist and disproportionate to the article as a whole. USADA have dealt with hundreds, probably thousands, of cases, so let's keep this one in perspective. Kevin McE (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The actual section reads:

"USADA claimed results management jurisdiction in the matter, and declared all Armstrong's results since August 1998, including seven Tour de France victories, null, imposing a lifetime ban from all sports in its jurisdiction.[19] The UCI has recognized that USADA claims jurisdiction in this case and asked for a reasoned decision before taking action while WADA has expressed its support to USADA and said it has the right to apply a penalty that will be recognized by all WADA code countries around the world"

Would it be so wrong to make the section clearer and more factually correct by modifying it to say:

"The UCI has recognized that USADA claims jurisdiction in this case, but disputes USADA's claim, and has demanded the USADA give a written report as to why the UCI should actually remove the titles." Crosgrove (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to use the emotionally charged demanded rather than the factual asked for; you would need to find evidence that the UCI have disputed any claim. The WADC requires a report to the sport's governing body where there has not been a review hearing: UCI is awaiting that. I think we have sufficient fact: the USADA deals with hundreds of cases, and the article is nt well served by disproportionate attention to one case. Kevin McE (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"(Reuters) - The International Cycling Union (UCI) has said its dispute with the U.S. Anti Doping Agency over who should handle the Lance Armstrong doping allegations should be settled by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)." http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/05/us-cycling-armstrong-row-idUSBRE8740E420120805

"Still to be heard from was the sport's governing body, the International Cycling Union, which had backed Armstrong's legal challenge to USADA's authority and in theory could take the case before the international Court of Arbitration for Sport." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iDgA1ljoJ934LrLwGXUTTdfMc59g?docId=59dbdd7fb92d486aa641998df89e89e5

"UCI claims that USADA lacks the authority to pursue its case against Armstrong, who USADA formally charged in June for doping based on blood samples and witness statements and associates of whom USADA recently banned for life. In UCI's view, it has exclusive jurisdiction over Armstrong at this time and USADA must wait for UCI to take action, if any, against Armstrong. To advance its argument, UCI emphasizes that it has not yet addressed an April 30 e-mail from cyclist Floyd Landis in which Landis claims, among other things, that Armstrong used steroids, blood doping and human growth hormones, and that he received advice from Armstrong on how to most effectively dope.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/08/03/Lance-Armstrong-UCI-USADA/index.html#ixzz24q3UTRM2" and http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/08/03/Lance-Armstrong-UCI-USADA/index.html

This first story, BTW, has been run in hundreds of news sources, if Google is to be believed. Took me about 10 seconds to find it by Google. And, they didn't "ask for" the report, they have made it clear that until they actually get the report and review it, they will be taking no action. That is not a "request". But, let's not get hung up in semantics, as the fact remains that the way the Wiki article reads Lancce has already lost his titles--which he has not--and that the UCI recognizes (i.e. approves) of the USADA having authority in this matter. Wikipedia has the information on its page wrong. The UCI--cycling's authority disputes the USADA having any authority in this matter.

And, the simple fact remains that the Wiki page is claiming that Armstrong has lost his titles, but there has yet to be anyone who has posted anything saying that they have any authority to actually strip him of his titles. Someone, please, anyone, cite a single document that says they have actual authority to do so. And, no, it can't be them claiming they are the governing body of anything "doping", because as the Wikipedia page itself states, they are "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States." Now, I know I am not omniscient, but I am fairly certain that the Tour de France doesn't take place in the United States. And, the rules of assertion are plainly accepted--the party making the assertion bears the burden of proof. The people who claim that Lance Armstrong lost his titles are making an assertion. If they point to the USADA as having authority to actually perform that act, they need to justify said assertion. To claim that he lost the titles, and then in the "Lance Armstrong Controversy" section not state--clearly--that there has yet to be a showing that the USADA has any authority to do so, is to publish a RUMOR on Wikipedia and claim it as fact. Yes, the whole damned world is reporting they stripped him of his titles, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. Especilly in light of the fact that the USADA is pushing UCI to actually follow their lead. (Let's be candid--if they had the authority to strip him of his title, the UCI would no longer be needed to, nor be able to. It would be done and finished.) And Wikipedia, if it is going to report on this at all, needs to report either just facts, or if facts are in dispute, it needs to clearly supply both sides of the controversy. Saying Armstrong lost his titles and then saying the UCI is waiting for a report from USADA without saying WHY they are waiting (i.e. because until such time they will not consider removing the Titles from Armstrong and he still has them) is to be intentionally inaccurate. Crosgrove (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course the UCI are waiting for the report: they are not going to act on media hearsay. The only action that UCI can choose to take other than ratifying USADA's decision is to challenge it before the CAS. I've already referred you several times to the WADC that explains USADA's authority over results management. The article says that USADA has declared his results null, and that is true. (and please follow wiki procedure in indenting your comments in discussions) Kevin McE (talk) 13:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as of Today, October 22, 2012, it can now finally be said that Armstrong was stripped of his titles. http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDetails2011.asp?id=ODgzNA&MenuId=MTYzMDQ&LangId=1&BackLink=%2FTemplates%2FUCI%2FUCI8%2Flayout%2Easp%3FMenuID%3DMTYzMDQ%26LangId%3D1 Today is the FIRST day that it can be said he has been stripped of his titles. And this illustrates why people who contribute to Wikipedia should do a little more than simply read some fiftieth-hand account's headline before they contribute to Wikipedia, or argue against those who have actually gone to the original source of information and found that the popular press headlines are wrong. This is Wikipedia--it is supposed to be accurate. If people wanted hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay they would simply read the popular news headlines their favorite news aggregator delivered to them that morning. People who come to Wikipedia want facts, not sensationalistic rumors. Crosgrove (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No, today is the first day that it is confirmed that the UCI accept a decision that was made some time ago. An excellent illustration of why we do not rely on primary sources. Kevin McE (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you TRYING to be wrong? The UCI striped him of this titles today. It is THE governing body of the sport, and the only body (aside from the Tour de France people) that can strip him of titles. Had the UCI decided to not honor the decision of the USADA, he would still have his titles. Here is the actual decision: http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTYzMDQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=ODE5MjI&LangId=1 Crosgrove (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. Had the UCI not accepted the ban and results amendment already put in place by USADA, who have full authority to do so under the WADC, to which the UCI is a signatory, the most that they could have done was to challenge it at the CAS: they had no authority to overturn it themselves. Kevin McE (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong Case?

I do not believe the Lance Armstrong case should be included in this article at all. Why include this case and not the thousands of others? If anything a link should by included in the article to Armstrong's page, or a page dedicated to his doping allegations/history if its deemed noteworthy enough to have its own page. If we include his case in the page where do we draw the line on which cases to include? Individual cases do not belong in the article describing the agency. What are others thoughts on this? Legion211 (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but in this situation, Armstrong actually filed a lawsuit against the USADA – even though it was later dismessed. So it's probably relevant here – at least more so than the average doping case. Mojoworker (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The Armstrong section in this article does not address the civil case. Even if it did it still does not seem to be relevant to the page describing the agency. Also it seems this in more appropriate to List of doping cases in cycling or Doping in the United States, which is linked at the bottom of the page. Since you are the only responder to date and you dissent, I will not address it in the article. Thanks for your response. Legion211 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate, a Federal Judge questioning USADA's conduct and motives seems relevant to the article. Mojoworker (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I'm new to Wikipedia, but the article seems quite neutral and factual to me. Small LA section which seems proportionate as it is USADA most known case. Should this tag be removed. I have no clue about the other stuff Oxfordowl1 (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Anti-Doping Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://lancearmstrong.com/news-events/lance-armstrongs-statement-of-august-23-2012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

ufc

Does this say UFC is not governed by USADA? Actually, USADA has been charging fighters left and rightSmarkflea (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Anti-Doping Agency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130203063003/http://www.supplementsafetynow.com/ to http://www.supplementsafetynow.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)