Did the USADA break the Law?

[Polish]

That is what the Armstrong lawyers are suggesting:

Armstrong lawyer Tim Herman:
"USADA may be violating the law with sweetheart deals - where cycling bans or suspensions can be reduced if the rider has dirt that can incriminate Armstrong."

Armstrong lawyer Bill Daly:
"We understand that riders may be offered sweetheart deals to change testimony that they have given in the past, under oath,"

USADA chief executive Travis Tygart denies:
"the agency had done nothing illegal and was well within its rights to ask cyclists to "be truthful about drug use and cycling."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...06_report_irks_lances_atty.html#ixzz0vrVt5ARS


Anyone have any inside scoop/poop/opinion on this?

I would think US Law overrides USADA sanctions or lack thereof...

 

[sub240]

That is what the Armstrong lawyers are suggesting:

Armstrong lawyer Tim Herman:
"USADA may be violating the law with sweetheart deals - where cycling bans or suspensions can be reduced if the rider has dirt that can incriminate Armstrong."

Armstrong lawyer Bill Daly:
"We understand that riders may be offered sweetheart deals to change testimony that they have given in the past, under oath,"

USADA chief executive Travis Tygart denies:
"the agency had done nothing illegal and was well within its rights to ask cyclists to "be truthful about drug use and cycling."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...06_report_irks_lances_atty.html#ixzz0vrVt5ARS


Anyone have any inside scoop/poop/opinion on this?

I would think US Law overrides USADA sanctions or lack thereof...

Here you go again. I bet the replies will be stiff.

 

[red_flanders]

Since you're asking if they're breaking the law, maybe you could provide an example of what law(s) is/are being broken.

In the story you linked, neither of Armstrong's attorneys are quoted as saying a law was broken. They also provide no example of what law is being broken. Which makes sense since they don't make that claim.

"This is a story full of anonymous sources and more inappropriate leaks of grand jury testimony designed to create a circus-like atmosphere," Bryan Daly said in a statement, referring to a story published in Thursday's New York Times.

...

"We understand that riders may be offered sweetheart deals to change testimony that they have given in the past, under oath," Daly said in the statement. "The power of the federal government is being abused to pursue dated and discredited allegations, and that's flat-out wrong, unethical, un-American, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Nothing about a law being broken.

Why do you suggest there has been when even Armstrong's lawyers won't go so far, let alone anyone impartial with credibility on the topic??

Very strange and misleading post.

 

[Kennf1]

New thread: Did Time Herman defame USADA?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Dead End

In the absence of ANYTHING to use as an offense, they are now making it up.

Please explain how you can possibly take this seriously.

This is classic Iraqi Minister of Information talk circa Bush II's WMD revenge party invasion. It would sound funnier and entirely appropriate coming out of that guy, wherever he is.

The joke is on you Polish.

 

[Publicus]

Armstrong's defense team in action:

*** edited by mod ***

 

[131313]

Since you're asking if they're breaking the law, maybe you could provide an example of what law(s) is/are being broken.

In the story you linked, neither of Armstrong's attorneys are quoted as saying a law was broken. They also provide no example of what law is being broken. Which makes sense since they don't make that claim.



Nothing about a law being broken.

Why do you suggest there has been when even Armstrong's lawyers won't go so far, let alone anyone impartial with credibility on the topic??

Very strange and misleading post.

actually, it appears that his lawyers have indeed gone that far:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...10-08-03_lances_rep_rips_agencys_tactics.html

The United States Anti-Doping Agency may be violating the law by offering deals to cyclists who dish steroid dirt on Lance Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France winner's lawyer said on Monday.

Austin attorney Tim Herman said he has heard in recent weeks from lawyers representing several riders that USADA has offered reduced suspensions or bans to juiced cyclists who testify or provide information that Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs.

"The biggest problem is that it is against the law for any private party to offer anything in exchange for testimony," Herman told the Daily News. "This illustrates that this is a ridiculous use of tax dollars to regulate a sport, especially one that is almost entirely European."

 

[Cobblestones]

It's a good point but you have it upside down.

If you doped, a truthful testimony in a trial will get you in difficulty with the USADA. That could be interpreted as witness intimidation or tampering, I guess. So by promising not to sanction self-confessed dopers in exchange for complete cooperation with the federal investigation, USADA is precisely avoiding any influence on witness testimony. You and LA's lawyers should praise USADA for taking those actions.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Riight

Austin attorney Tim Herman said he has heard ...

Did it really happen? No one can rely on Herman to honestly portray the situations he's describing. Cobblestone's opinion on the matter is relevant.
Is he creatively stating some facts to serve his end game? Yes. They are taking an opportunity to stir up clouds of doubt and portray Lance as the victim.

I stand by my previous claim, it would sound better coming out of that Iraqi Information Minister from the WMD revenge party.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That is what the Armstrong lawyers are suggesting:

Armstrong lawyer Tim Herman:
"USADA may be violating the law with sweetheart deals - where cycling bans or suspensions can be reduced if the rider has dirt that can incriminate Armstrong."

Armstrong lawyer Bill Daly:
"We understand that riders may be offered sweetheart deals to change testimony that they have given in the past, under oath,"

USADA chief executive Travis Tygart denies:
"the agency had done nothing illegal and was well within its rights to ask cyclists to "be truthful about drug use and cycling."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...06_report_irks_lances_atty.html#ixzz0vrVt5ARS


Anyone have any inside scoop/poop/opinion on this?

I would think US Law overrides USADA sanctions or lack thereof...

Polish I have taken the time to read your post - I have taken out your bold highlighted statements and replaced them with my own color (Red for Poland) - and then added bold to what I see in the statements - see if you spot the difference.

That is what the Armstrong lawyers are suggesting:

Armstrong lawyer Tim Herman:
"USADA may be violating the law with sweetheart deals - where cycling bans or suspensions can be reduced if the rider has dirt that can incriminate Armstrong."

Armstrong lawyer Bill Daly:
"We understand that riders may be offered sweetheart deals to change testimony that they have given in the past, under oath,"

USADA chief executive Travis Tygart denies:
"the agency had done nothing illegal and was well within its rights to ask cyclists to "be truthful about drug use and cycling."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...06_report_irks_lances_atty.html#ixzz0vrVt5ARS


Anyone have any inside scoop/poop/opinion on this?

I would think US Law overrides USADA sanctions or lack thereof...

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Is there really a point to this thread? Not just he OP, but don't the responses also cover all that needs to be said?

 

[MacRoadie]

Is there really a point to this thread? Not just he OP, but don't the responses also cover all that needs to be said?

It's already been discussed on other threads (By Joe P. I think), that the USADA offer in return for information is codified and has been in place for some time.

This is an obvious attempt at obfuscation. Close it down.

 

[saganftw]

It's already been discussed on other threads (By Joe P. I think), that the USADA offer in return for information is codified and has been in place for some time.

This is an obvious attempt at obfuscation. Close it down.

as i understand it LAs lawyers have no problem with "return for information part" but with "return for dirt part",in other words USADA is not trying to find the truth but to find dirt on LA

isnt this what LA lawyers are trying to say?

 

[Polish]

Is there really a point to this thread? Not just he OP, but don't the responses also cover all that needs to be said?

"Did the USADA break the Law?"

I am asking for opinions. That is the point of this thread.

Lance's lawyers are suggesting that laws may have been broken.

USADA is denying it.

 

[eleven]

"Did the USADA break the Law?"

I am asking for opinions. That is the point of this thread.

Lance's lawyers are suggesting that laws may have been broken.

USADA is denying it.

USADA can set any rules they'd like, but as to whether that information is then admissable in court? Maybe not. I think that's where Herman's heading with this.

 

[MacRoadie]

as i understand it LAs lawyers have no problem with "return for information part" but with "return for dirt part",in other words USADA is not trying to find the truth but to find dirt on LA

isnt this what LA lawyers are trying to say?

I think what they are really trying to say is:

Return for information = exculpatory = good for Lance = USADA is doing it's job

Return for dirt = inculpatory = bad for Lance = USADA is breaking the law

 

[scribe]

I read that as a course of investigation, it is unlawful for them to make an benefiting offer to a witness in exchange for testimony about a particular person.

Seems like a desperate move that will more serve to enrage the investigators. Or maybe there is some merit to it.

 

[Polish]

It's already been discussed on other threads (By Joe P. I think), that the USADA offer in return for information is codified and has been in place for some time.

This is an obvious attempt at obfuscation. Close it down.

Does the fact that it has been discussed already in the Clinic (by Joe P I think) make it legal?

Joe P, selling EPO to who knows who, stays out of jail and then trashes Lance in the Clinic.
Is that legal?

 

[MacRoadie]

Does the fact that it has been discussed already in the Clinic (by Joe P I think) make it legal?

Joe P, selling EPO to who knows who, stays out of jail and then trashes Lance in the Clinic.
Is that legal?

No, Einstein, it means it's already being discussed elsewhere and this thread (and likely your sophomoric posts) are duplicative.

Maybe, if you spent even 1/8 of the time you spend typing your pablum on actually looking at the threads, you'd see that Papp simply provided a link to the applicable USADA documents.

Looks like you're pretty ****-sore over Joe. Did he steal your doll on the playground in kindergarten?

 

[eleven]

No, Einstein, it means it's already being discussed elsewhere and this thread (and likely your sophomoric posts) are duplicative.

Maybe, if you spent even 1/8 of the time you spend typing your pablum on actually looking at the threads, you'd see that Papp simply provided a link to the applicable USADA documents.

Looks like you're pretty ****-sore over Joe. Did he steal your doll on the playground in kindergarten?

It's not about the USADA documents. It's about the admissability of rewarded testimony in a federal investigation. The Fed's don't give a flying %*$# what USADA policy is.

 

[MacRoadie]

It's not about the USADA documents. It's about the admissability of rewarded testimony in a federal investigation. The Fed's don't give a flying %*$# what USADA policy is.

Obviously. That's the whole point.

Armstrong's lawyers are trying to disseminate the message that USADA is somehow brokering information for the Feds by offering reduced suspensions on doping violations. The whole idea idea ludicrous. The Feds don't need USADA, and even a long-time viewer of Boston Legal could tell you USDA has no authority or jurisdiction to enter into such a bargaining agreement.

The USADA documents Papp referenced simply state that there is codified precedence for reduced suspensions/penalties when iformation on other doping activities is proffered, in an anti-doping proceding, nothing more. They were referenced on the odd chance (and nothing is odd around here) that someone would attempt to make the argument that even that practice was somehow out of the ordinary, which it isn't.

 

[Race Radio]

It's not about the USADA documents. It's about the admissability of rewarded testimony in a federal investigation. The Fed's don't give a flying %*$# what USADA policy is.

The Feds were called into the case by USDA so they are hardly unimportant, but ultimately not necessary......regardless this is all smoke and mirrors. Testimony from plea bargains is a huge part of many cases. To pretend to it is all different with it comes to Armstrong is just more of the media campaign and has no basis on reality.

 

[tubularglue]

i am wondering,

Has Lance ever paid off member(S) of the USADA, or ever given a donation(s) to the USADA ?

curious

 

[Publicus]

I read that as a course of investigation, it is unlawful for them to make an benefiting offer to a witness in exchange for testimony about a particular person.

Seems like a desperate move that will more serve to enrage the investigators. Or maybe there is some merit to it.

Can you provide a link or description of the particular law that is being violated?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It's already been discussed on other threads (By Joe P. I think), that the USADA offer in return for information is codified and has been in place for some time.

This is an obvious attempt at obfuscation. Close it down.

I don't agree -

This is correct "This is an obvious attempt at obfuscation".

But my view is leave it open - if that is their goal -then let 'Polish' (or whoever) hang on their statements.

Let the mods patrol for insulting behavior or sockpuppets and whatever else they look for.

There are plenty of smart, articulate members who can point out those with obvious agendas.