LANCE ARMSTRONG: THE MOST SOPHISTICATED DOPING CONSPIRACY IN THE HISTORY OF SPORTS

In 1999 Lance Armstrong won his first Tour de France. My reaction then was one of total disbelief and shock. I followed cycling for many years and I knew that no one could improve so dramatically within one year without doping. Particularly that Armstrong was already 28 years old. When Jacques Anquetil, Eddie Mercks, Bernard Hinault or Miguel Indurain, the great heros of international cycling, were winning their multiple Tour de France races, they were strong all around riders from the beginning of their careers whereas Lance was mediocre in multiple stage races, which included mountain terrain stages. Prior to 1999 Lance Armstrong was known as an average cyclist in mountain stages whereas he was a very good sprinter who was able to win a flat stage, or he was capable of winning one-stage races on a flat terrain, like for example world championship or one-stage classics. Sprinters like Lance Armstrong, Olaf Ludvig, or Mark Cavendish are not capable of winning multiple stages races like Tour de France, Giro D'Italia or Vuelta Espana, that is without doping. Prior to 1999 Lance Armstrong was never a contender to win the Tour de France, in fact he was happy to finish it 15-30 or more minutes behind the leader. However, suddenly, out of the blue, barely a cancer survivor, he won record seven Tour de France races from 1999 to 2005! All insiders of cycling knew that Armstrong had to dope for, as many insiders said, nobody could have improved at the age of 28 so much or so suddenly change his characteristics as a rider (i.e. a sprinter could not have suddenly become a great mountain rider). Greg LeMond, a great cyclist, from the beginning of his career, knew all this of course, and he could not stomach the great Armstrong lie. He decided to fight Armstrong. But it was not to be easy. Lance Armstrong aided by his doctors and his chief consultant dr. Michele Ferrari, who was known in cycling for helping dopers, and was even convicted for it, continued the big lie. Lance Armstrong refused to dissasociate himself from dr. Ferrari after the latter's conviction, as without him, or without doping, Lance Armstrong would not have been able to win any of the Tours. Lance did not want to fight for a win in Giro D'Italia, as the greats in the past were doing, for the risk of being caught would multiply, and Italy developped strong laws against doping. There was no proper test for EPO in those years in which Armstrong won the Tour de France, therefore he was successful in beating the doping tests (Also, the EPO stayed in blood only for 12 hours, and the tests could not show it if it was taken more than 12 hours prior to the test being applied). Naturally, the tests were not able to show any of the blood transfusions. However, when the doping test for EPO was developped and Armstrong's old blood samples taken in 1999 Tour de France (kept in freezers) were reaxamined, suddenly the authorities had 6 samples proving that Lance doped during the 1999 Tours de France, the first of the Tours that he won. Of course, in the court of law, due to due process one could not rely on old samples, that's why he won a lawsuit when one of the sponsors refused to pay Lance Armstrong $5 million per sponsorship contract. But, his doping was confirmed for all to see, and Armstrong could have acknowledged the doping, but he decided that denial was the proper course for him. He vowed to deny to the end of his life. Since Lance Armstrong was a cancer survivor and was such a big hero to masses, he became a holly cow one could not touch. Over the years I have voiced my opinions regarding his doping and I knew how untouchable Armstrong became to media and fans, particularly in the United States. Suddenly, Greg LeMond, the true American cycling hero, has become an enemy of the American people. Anyone who attempted to touch Armstrong was enemy of the people. Lance Armstrong bullied everyone and played the legal system relying on the rules of evidence and protection afforded usually to those criminally charged. He was supported by the media, corporate sponsors, medical, research and cancer foundations, etc., all those who either drew material gains or who were looking for a great American hero. Thanks to that support, all his former coriders or confidantes who came out and spoke against him, paid the price by being villified, attacked and dragged in dirt by those who supported the Armstrong lies: the cog in the conspiracy - Lance Armstrong himself - and his doctors, sponsors, mostly U.S. media, lawyers, etc. They all bullied and crucified the following whistle blowers: Greg LeMond, Armstrong's teammate Frankie Andreu and his wife Betsy Andreu, journalist and writer David Walsh, Armstrongs' masseuse Emma O'Reilly, cyclist and columnist Christophe Bassons and teammate Floyd Landis, and then more of his former teammates. The most perplexing was Lance Armstrong's attack on Christophe Bassons during the 1999 Tour de France. Bassons was a cyclist who was known as the only cyclist on Festina team who never doped, pursuant to testimony of his doping teammates to the Police. He was known for fighting with doping in cycling and was the author of the phrase of "two speeds" in cycling, one of the dopers and the other of those not doping. During 1999 Tour de France, while himself riding in the Tour, Bassons was also a columnist for "Le Parisien" and in his column he started to question Armstrong's shocking and unexplained bursts of speed; Armstrong cycled to Bassons during one of the stages and bullied him and threatened so viciously, that Christophe Bassons, the cyclist and columnist felt that he had no choice but to leave the Tour, afraid for his own safety. Lance Armstrong's cancer foundation (which apparently raised more than $500 million out of which only $20 million was provided to cancer research, the rest spent on so called cancer awareness, etc.) has been a cash cow for Armstrong's circles, and was a great PR success for Lance Armstrong himself and his shield from doping accusations. More and more people were coming out with revelations about Armstrong's doping, yet Armstrong was able either to play the media or the media were willing participant in his conspiracy, and with support of the media he bullied the few who dared to speak out against him. Yet now, when he was charged officially with doping, when the court of law in Austin, Texas dismissed Armstrong's lawsuit and decided that USADA can proceed with the doping case, Lance Armstrong decided not to appeal to Court of Arbitration for Sport and said "enough is enough" in order to stop the witnesses from testifying. This way, he can be stripped of his wins but he still can claim in the court of public opinion that he is a victim of a witchhunt. How smart! It is enough to read various forums online, mostly here in America, to realize to what extent his gullible followers would go to protect the myth of Lance the strong man, the American hero, the man who beat cancer and then won seven Tour the France races, the most grueling sporting event in the world. Should have he decided to proceed with the case in CAS, the public opinion would have heard his confidantes and riders from his team testifying graphically about his doping, taking EPO which after 12 hours would not show in his blood during tests or numerous blood transfusions, or about his doctor predating a prescription for a steroid based ointment which steroid was uncovered in his blood after one of the tests and when his whole team panicked; he would have been finished for all to see. Lance Armstrong is a smart cheater, and always was, so he did not file the appeal with Court for Sport Arbitration, said "enough is enough", by same cutting off any public testimony with graphic details of doping by ten witnesses consisting of his teammates and confidantes! He still is trying to salvage the myth and some of his sponsors. He defended himself in courts when there was no one willing to testify against him. Now, when USADA has 10 witnesses (former co-riders and confidantes of Armstrong) who would graphically disclose the details of Armstrong's doping scheme, he suddenly says "enough is enough". Where is the honor, Mr. Armstrong? Or perhaps, he does not want to enjoy the fate of Marion Jones, who if I remeber correctly also passed all the doping tests? Nobody is perfect in this life, and we all have our own weaknesses, our secrets, we all bear our crosses. We commit our mistakes, our sins, regret them, repent in our own ways and try to become better. We all try to learn from our mistakes. Not Lance Armstrong, though. This man is all about denials, this man bullied and destroyed others in protecting the big lie, this man used the mantle of savior of millions of people struck by cancer to protect the big lie and the money he earned as a result of perpetrating the big lie. This man, as they say, planned to run for the office of the governor of Texas, and then for the U.S. presidency. He made himself a public person and now he should be treated as such. As I hate to throw stones at anybody, for we all are sinners, including myself, I am one of the many who do not have any sympathy for Lance Armstrong, the public persona. But I wish well the tormented human being who hides behind the public image of Lance, the strong man.

Janusz Andrzejewski, is an attorney based in New York, writing on legal and other important community topics. You can contact him by telephone: (212) 634-4250 or through e-mail: janusz@januszandrzejewski.com

HOW GREAT BRITAIN CORNERED ITSELF: FROM PINOCHET TO ASSANGE AND GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY

Great Britain and its government has put itself on the track to become a pariah of international community. Its Foreign Office has made threaths to the country of Ecuador and its authorities to invade Ecuadorean Embassy in London, Great Britain, should Ecuador grant Julian Assange's request for political asylum and fail to release Mr. Assange to British authorities, who then would extradite him to Sweden, where he is wanted for "questioning" in alleged misbehavior consisting of having unprotected consensual sex with two adult women - initially Swedish prosecutor dropped the charges, however they were reinstated as a result of an apparent pressure by a foreign power. The WikiLeaks founder is afraid that Sweden would release him to the U.S. authorities which in all probability would put him on trial for espionage (and possibly for treason, although it appears that argument for treason charges would be tenuous, at best, as Mr. Assange is not a U.S. citizen) and would have him subjected to a capital punishment. Since Great Britain, Sweden and USA have reportedly refused to give guarantees to Ecuador that Mr. Assange would not be extradited to the United States, Ecuador decided to approve Mr. Assange's request for political asylum based on a well founded fear of persecution. It is staggering how a country of Great Britain's stature could have cornered itself so unwisely... The Foreign Office threatened Ecuador that it would utilize a 1987 Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act to invade Ecuadorean Embassy and to remove Mr. Assange. However, that obscure act has been cooked up to remove squaters from foreign embassies or foreign countries' properties, whereas Mr. Assange is on the country of Ecuador's property with consent of the owners, so legally a squatter he is not. The Brits can still save their face by closing their eyes and allowing Assange to slip through... After all, it would be a piece of cake for the U.S. special forces to abduct Assange from Ecuador and have him brought to the United States for trial. Britain's invasion of the Ecuadorean Embassy would have caused more chaos in the world of diplomatic affairs than publication of the United States' diplomatic correspondence by WikiLeaks has ever caused. Let's hope that Great Britain will not shoot at its own foot and will not carry out its threats as such an unwise conduct would open the pandora's box. Invasion of the territory of Ecuadorian Embassy would cause the greatest damage to international relations ever done and, indirectly, irreparable damage to world order. Such an outcome would not further anybody's interests, including those of the United States. Great Britain claims to follow the rule of law in pursuing their plan to invade inviolable, under the Vienna Convention, territory of the Embassy of Ecuador and to extradite Julian Assange on trumped up charges of engaging in unprotected consensual sex with adult women, which charges were dropped earlier by the Swedish prosecutor; it is the same Great Britain which refused to extradite general Pinochet, former dictator of Chile, murderer and torturer of thousands of his own countrymen, when Spain demanded lawfully his extradition. Are we missing something? It appears that Great Britain was caught off handed while doing the United States' dirty work. Will the United States save now the Brits from their conundrum and declare that they are not interested in seeking extradition of Mr. Assange, neither from the Brits nor Swedes, by the same opening the door for Mr. Assange to agree to his extradition to Sweden? I guess, not. From the U.S. point of view, if they really believe that Mr. Assange endangered the lives of American operatives or soldiers, they should go after him. But why not be straightforward about it? Why cause the British and Swedish allies to lose their faces while the U.S. sits on the fence, observing the Swedes and Brits playing the charade?

Janusz Andrzejewski is a New York City based attorney, who writes on legal and other important community subjects. You can reach him on cell phone: (212) 634-4250 or through e-mail: janusz@januszandrzejewski.com

POLSKI ADWOKAT W AMERYCE

Sezon ogorkowy. Wokol gorace lato, klienci porozjezdali sie na wakacje po swiecie, wiec jest i czas na refleksje. Euro 2012 co prawda bylo udane dla nas organizacyjnie ale w wymiarze sportowym, jezeli chodzi o nasza reprezentacje, zakonczylo sie fiaskiem. Londyn 2012 z koleji jest sukcesem sportowym dla Brytyjczykow, ale organizacyjnie bedzie zapamietany jako igrzyska wszechwladnego chaosu. Dla polskiego sportu natomiast igrzyska londynskie sa sportowa katastrofa i stypa pogrzebowa, nie liczac kilku sportowcow ktorzy wybili sie ponad przecietnosc wbrew przestarzalemu systemowi zarzadzania naszym sportem. Jezeli chodzi o moje podworko, minelo juz dziewietnascie lat od czasu kiedy otworzylem kancelarie adwokacka na Manhattanie. Do dzisiaj przewinelo sie przez nia tysiace ludzi, glownie imigrantow. Ciekawy przeglad nowej krwi wtlaczanej do organizmu USA. Wiekszosc mojej praktyki to sprawy imigracyjne (takie jak aplikacje o staly pobyt w USA, potocznie znane w polskim srodowisku Greenpointu, Ridgewood czy Maspeth jako "zielona karta", obywatelstwo, wizy pracownicze, studenckie, no i obrona w sprawach deportacyjnych), sprawy z zakresu prawa rodzinnego (jak rozwody, alimenty, opieka na dziecmi, wizytacje, ustalenie ojcostwa), sprawy cywilne wynikajace z roznego rodzaju wypadkow (np. wypadki samochodowe, autobusowe, w metrze, w budynkach, na budowie, przeciwko miastu Nowy Jork), zaniedbania lekarskie, sprawy spadkowe, sprawy mieszkaniowe i obsluga prawna w sprawach kupna nieruchomosci i zakladania korporacji czy biznesow, no i obrona w sprawach karnych w zakresie prowadzenia samochodu pod wplywem alkocholu. Moimi klientami byli glownie imigranci z Polski i Amerykanie, ale takze imigranci z Jamajki, Wielkiej Brytanii, Czech, Slowacji, Nigerii, Francji, Wloch, Ukrainy, Rosji, Bialorusi, Rumunii, Wegier, Kanady, Meksyku, Hondurasu, Dominikany czy Izraela. Co sprawa to inny charaker ludzki. Najwiecej satysfakcji przynosily sprawy tych uratowanych przed deportacja, czasem nawet udalo sie uratowac ludzi ktorzy juz byli w drodze na lotnisko... Mialem kilka spraw nawet przeciwko rzadowi USA z ktorych najciekawsza i najbardziej zwariowana byla sprawa przeciwko CIA o odszkodowanie dla... szpiega. Sprawe te prowadzilem pro bono jako ze moim klientem byl schorowany starszy czlowiek, "wyrolowany" przez CIA. Wiekszosc spraw, no coz, moze nie byla tak ciekawa, ale zawsze zostawala satysfakcja. Zmienily sie czasy, zmienil sie wektor polskiej emigracji. Mloda polska krew obecnie zasila spolecznosci Wielkiej Brytanii, Irlandii, Norwegii, Niemiec czy Holandii. Miejmy nadzieje ze juz niedlugo Polska zostanie wciagnieta na liste krajow ktore obejmuje Visa Waiver Program.

Janusz Andrzejewski, jest adwokatem prowadzacym praktyke adwokacka w Nowym Jorku, i pisujacym na tym blogu na tematy prawne i inne wazne tematy polskiej spolecznosci. Mozesz skontaktowac sie z nim telefonicznie: (212) 634-4250 badz przez e-mail: janusz@januszandrzejewski.com

LONDYN 2012: CZY TO OSTATNIA KOMPROMITACJA ZMURSZALYCH STRUKTUR POLSKIEGO SPORTU?

No coz, istoty sportu nie da sie oszukac, zbalamucic czy tez przekabacic: wygrywaja najlepsi, pomijajac mimo wszystko rzadkie pomylki sedziowskie czy zwykly brak szczescia. Polski sport pokazal na olimpiadzie w Londynie swoja prawdziwa twarz: kompletny brak wizji, dyscypliny, umiejetnosci i ambicji. Totalna kompromitacja naszych reprezentantow na olimpiadzie w Londynie, na tle sukcesow ekonomicznych i politycznych Polski w ostatnich latach, ukazuja dobitnie totalny bezwlad struktur naszego sportu. Jak nasza gospodarka potrafila sie przeksztalcic i nastawic na potrzeby rynku, tak nasze struktury sportowe nawet nie drgnely w swojej inercji, wciaz tkwia w komunistycznym modelu zarzadzania sportem. Proponuje by caly PKOL podal sie do dymisji, bo nie wierze by poszczegolne zwiazki, zwlaszcza te nie pobierajace dotacji panstwowych, byly gotowe na jakiekolwiek zmiany. A poki co, zapalmy swieczke na pogrzebie polskiego sportu...

Janusz Andrzejewski, nowojorski adwokat, pisze na tematy prawne i inne wazne tematy spoleczne. Kontakt przez tel. (212) 634-4250  badz przez e-mail: janusz@januszandrzejewski.com