Did the USADA break the Law?

[Publicus]

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.

Can you provide a link or code section that deals with the admissibility of rewarded testimony?

 

[Race Radio]

Can you provide a link or code section that deals with the admissibility of rewarded testimony?

Don't hold your breath

 

[scribe]

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

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2010-08-02-lance-armstrong-lawyers-usada_N.htm

References in this article amongst others. The USADA doesn't single out athletes as a rule. Splitting hairs, I am sure.

 

[Publicus]

Don't hold your breath

Don't worry, I'm not.

 

[scribe]

Don't worry, I'm not.

Speaking of sweetheart deals. Did you get a warning for that post above that needed to be edited by moderator? I've gotten one every time I crossed the line. Which, unfortunately, doesn't happen very often.

 

[Realist]

That is what the Armstrong lawyers are suggesting:

Partisan hack much?

 

[Publicus]

Speaking of sweetheart deals. Did you get a warning for that post above that needed to be edited by moderator? I've gotten one every time I crossed the line. Which, unfortunately, doesn't happen very often.

Had no idea it was edited. To answer your question I wasn't warned, nor do I think what I posted warranted editing or a warning. But I'm not a moderator, so I'm not going to make a big deal about it one way or the other.

As for your previous response, so in essence Herman is now trying to convert USADA's behavior into bribery. Slick, I'll grant him that, but it is pure obfuscation. He knows or should know that any person licensed as a professional cyclist in the US agrees as a condition of being granted a license to abide by the rules and regulations of USA Cycling, including its Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct provides that a licensee is subject to penalties for violating the anti-doping regulations promulgated by, among others, USADA, WADA and UCI.

Here's the important part from WADA:

10.5.3 Substantial Assistance in Discovering or
Establishing Anti-Doping Rule Violations
An Anti-Doping Organization with results
management responsibility for an anti-doping
rule violation may, prior to a final appellate
decision under Article 13 or the expiration of
the time to appeal, suspend a part of the
period of Ineligibility imposed in an individual
case where the Athlete or other Person has
provided Substantial Assistance to an Anti-
Doping Organization, criminal authority or
professional disciplinary body which results in
the Anti-Doping Organization discovering or
establishing an anti-doping rule violation by
another Person or which results in a criminal
or disciplinary body discovering or establishing
a criminal offense or the breach of professional rules by another Person.

* * * * * * *

No more than three-quarters of the
otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility
may be suspended.

You should read the commentary that explains what substantial assistance consists of what factors will influence how much is reduced from their sentence (sample : "the number of individuals implicated, the status of those individuals in the sport, whether a scheme involving Trafficking under Article 2.7 . . . and whether the violation involved a substance or method which is not readily detectable in Testing.")

Mr. Herman is either incompetent or he is playing fast and loose with the facts/law/regulations at play here. It took me all of five minutes to find this using teh Google.

Forgot to add the link to the WADA code: http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf

 

[Hugh Januss]

Had no idea it was edited. To answer your question I wasn't warned, nor do I think what I posted warranted editing or a warning.

Susan removed your cartoon character throwing poop illustration of the Lance legal team. I like Susan but she can be an ol'fuddyduddy sometimes.

 

[Anonymous]

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...

To answer the question you posed: No

 

[eleven]

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.

Apparently, not obvious enough for some.

The point is that if there is conflicting USADA testimony because some guy wanted to avoid further USADA sanction, then the testimony of that person in front of the FDA is going to be difficult to uphold - we have written and established records of said person changing their story, and changing that story in order to curry favor with the USADA...

So, if they testify to the FDA investigation and continue that story, it's impeachable.

 

[eleven]

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.

There's no plea-bargain testimony being discussed here.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There's no plea-bargain testimony being discussed here.

So -(in your view) what is being "discussed" here?

Or are riders going to go in to the USADA and say.... "Now, I never doped, but guess what I saw".... and get a reduced sentence for.....what exactly?

 

[red_flanders]

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."

Excellent, that does clarify the Armstrong lawyer position...somewhat. I still don't know what law they think USADA "may" be breaking.

Not the particular use of "may". It is a way of saying something without saying anything. It's a non statement. A non position.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

The point is that if there is conflicting USADA testimony because some guy wanted to avoid further USADA sanction, then the testimony of that person in front of the FDA is going to be difficult to uphold - we have written and established records of said person changing their story, and changing that story in order to curry favor with the USADA...So, if they testify to the FDA investigation and continue that story, it's impeachable.

This sanction deal is about testimony happening in a federal criminal trial first, not last IMO. Its about USADA using testimony from the criminal trial as evidence of doping violations, then sanctioning athletes on that basis. This is why riders wont want to give evidence at a criminal trial.

 

[python]

lets try to clarify what armstrong’s lawyers are saying on a likely example (i use a specific rider deliberately as it’s a reasonable speculation he may be subpoenaed by the grand jury)

levi leiheimer was publicly accused of blood doping by landis and holzer. in addition, lets say usada is sitting on another piece of evidence, that in combination with landis’s and holzer evidence, makes levi doping highly likely and allows usada opening an anti-doping rule violation proceedings against him.

if found guilty under the usada/wada rules for 2 separate doping offences (not even counting his us criteruim championship positive in the 90s), he will be kept you out of the sport for 8 years.

are you with me ? ..the proceeding hasn’t opened yet!

now, levi receives a subpoena from the federal grand jury. he goes there, receives immunity, admits his own doping and implicates several others. since it’s the grand jury stage, this info is officially sealed and at least technically the levi admission CAN NOT be used by the usada unless of course levi would tell them too. it is more than likely he will because during the actual public armstrong trial his admission will have surfaced anyway.

at that point usada will have a choice of opening proceedings against levi (or not) and if so usada may reduce levi sanctions (like in papp’s case) provided he cooperated with usada or the feds on suppliers, methods, other dopers…)

ao if levi ,like many other us athletes, received an educational letter from usada reminding him of the benefits of wada code 10.5.3 re cooperation (see publicus' post above), it is clear that armstrong lawyers are engaging in deliberate misinformation to intimidate usada and prevent athletes from telling the truth about their client.

and of course to score pr points via cheap obfuscation.

 

[la.margna]

It becomes clear that Cheatstrong's defence strategy will not be focused on facts but on loopholes, technicalities and formalities.

That's the only way out after having lived wrong for years as the facts of his cheating are overhelming for anybody with a brain.

But this means that Novitzky & Co. have to remain very, very careful and not mess it up...

 

[Publicus]

I'll post this here because it is semi-related. It's from the Newsweek article that the Swordsman posted in the links thread today (7 August):

Landis also writes that if Armstrong’s lawyers thought he was attempting to extort their client, they should have gone to the authorities. Herman says, “We have no interest in prosecuting Floyd Landis … Filing a complaint with criminal authorities is not a very efficient use of Lance’s time or energy.”

Landis is quite the astute character. He's cutting straight through the BS and calling their bluff. How much time would it take to forward the information on to the police/DA? And wouldn't it take less time (and money) than what he is expending today defending a potential indictment?

 

[Polish]

I'll post this here because it is semi-related. It's from the Newsweek article that the Swordsman posted in the links thread today (7 August):

Quote:
Landis also writes that if Armstrong’s lawyers thought he was attempting to extort their client, they should have gone to the authorities. Herman says, “We have no interest in prosecuting Floyd Landis … Filing a complaint with criminal authorities is not a very efficient use of Lance’s time or energy.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/07/roots-of-a-rift.html

Landis is quite the astute character. He's cutting straight through the BS and calling their bluff. How much time would it take to forward the information on to the police/DA? And wouldn't it take less time (and money) than what he is expending today defending a potential indictment?

That article is a great summary of Floyd's self described "extortion". The Armstrong lawyers called it a "shakedown". Same thing probably.

Did Lance give in? No, he did not.

But SHOULD have Lance given in to the extortion attempt?
Lance's lawyer says in the article:

"It doesn’t take a Nostradamus to figure out that if we had simply hired him, none of this would have happened.”

Yes, none of this would have happened if Lance simply gave in to Floyd's extortion. But Lance made the right decision. Lance can sleep at night.

Lance standing up to Floyd was awesome. And costly.

Yes, Publicus, it IS now taking more time (and money) defending a potential indictment. But Lance is NOT known for taking the EASY way out. Geez, how long have you been following pro cycling lol. Lance taking the easy way, hardyharhar. Get serious.

 

[Publicus]

That article is a great summary of Floyd's self described "extortion". The Armstrong lawyers called it a "shakedown". Same thing probably.

Did Lance give in? No, he did not.

But SHOULD have Lance given in to the extortion attempt?
Lance's lawyer says in the article:

"It doesn’t take a Nostradamus to figure out that if we had simply hired him, none of this would have happened.”

Yes, none of this would have happened if Lance simply gave in to Floyd's extortion. But Lance made the right decision. Lance can sleep at night.

Lance standing up to Floyd was awesome. And costly.

Yes, Publicus, it IS now taking more time (and money) defending a potential indictment. But Lance is NOT known for taking the EASY way out. Geez, how long have you been following pro cycling lol. Lance taking the easy way, hardyharhar. Get serious.

LOL. Once again Polish, you continue to demonstrate your special reading and comprehension skills. Always appreciate your views if for nothing else the comedy relief it provides.

Chapeau!

 

[ChrisE]

LOL. Once again Polish, you continue to demonstrate your special reading and comprehension skills. Always appreciate your views if for nothing else the comedy relief it provides.

Chapeau!

C'mon, Publicus. It's all pretty simple.

LA goes to the cops and says Landis is threatening to out systematic PED use on USPS unless he let's him ride on RS.

That would've put FL in his place.

 

[Realist]

That article is a great summary of Floyd's self described "extortion". The Armstrong lawyers called it a "shakedown". Same thing probably.

Did Lance give in? No, he did not.

But SHOULD have Lance given in to the extortion attempt?
Lance's lawyer says in the article:

"It doesn’t take a Nostradamus to figure out that if we had simply hired him, none of this would have happened.”

Yes, none of this would have happened if Lance simply gave in to Floyd's extortion. But Lance made the right decision. Lance can sleep at night.

Lance standing up to Floyd was awesome. And costly.

Yes, Publicus, it IS now taking more time (and money) defending a potential indictment. But Lance is NOT known for taking the EASY way out. Geez, how long have you been following pro cycling lol. Lance taking the easy way, hardyharhar. Get serious.

Lance can sleep at night? He is really the bastion of ethics and good behaviour... that's what is evidenced by his cheating in both sport and relationships and his bullying of those who do not fit into his plans, whether they are athletes breaking omerta or just people in his way.

Polish is the Fox News of this forum. Welcome to the spin zone. Shill.

 

[Realist]

C'mon, Publicus. It's all pretty simple.

LA goes to the cops and says Landis is threatening to out systematic PED use on USPS unless he let's him ride on RS.

That would've put FL in his place.

Yep yep yep. And the problem is, there was no evidence that this is what happened. If you read the article, there are no new quotes. No direct quote of Landis making these threats. Messick said he didn't threaten him. The only evidence of a 'threat' is Landis asked Bruyneel for a job in mid 2009. If the exchanges between Armstrong, Bruyneel and Landis demonstrated what Herman is saying, they would not have been taken off the Radioshack site.

 

[bobs nob]

That article is a great summary of Floyd's self described "extortion". The Armstrong lawyers called it a "shakedown". Same thing probably.

Did Lance give in? No, he did not.

But SHOULD have Lance given in to the extortion attempt?
Lance's lawyer says in the article:

"It doesn’t take a Nostradamus to figure out that if we had simply hired him, none of this would have happened.”

No way does Lance take the easy way out. Those samples from '99 are spiked!

Question for Polish: Are your sure WonderLance hasn't hacked your account?

 

[joe_papp]

There are no Sweetheart Deals b/c there haven't been any negotiations...

Shifting back to the topic of the OP, the attack against USADA requires you to assume that the agency has been in contact with riders willing to testify against Armstrong, yes?

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."

Never mind the fact that the agency has done nothing illegal and is well within its rights to ask cyclists to be truthful about drug use and cycling - I highly doubt that USADA even has access at this point to the witnesses and people of interest who have been interviewed or subpoenaed by the Feds.

Yes, USADA has a policy of not even confirming the existence of investigations, let alone commenting on active ones - so of course Travis hasn't taken to the airwaves to refute Herman's suggestion of "Sweetheart Deals." But maybe he should?