python said:
The only reason the hug has not withdrawn from the hearing is because it is a part of the coordinated plan to keep USADA's hands tied up with regard to releasing the evidence. They simply legally can not release as long as there is a pending case.
Until last week I would have agreed with the bolded statement completely, I think I am now of a different view based on further reading of the WADA Code and the USADA Protocols. I think instead that USADA will release the evidence
as it pertains to the case against Armstrong only as soon as possible, regardless of the status of arbitration matters concerning any of the others.
The governing sections of the rules applicable are the WADA Code, and specifically Article 14 re: Confidentiality, and the USADA Protocols, specifically Section 16 re: Public Disclosures. Without boring anyone with the details, I think if the USADA treats the decision against Armstrong as dispositive and final (as I think it must) then it doesn't matter whether the cases against Bruyneel and the others remain pending-- USADA can release the evidence as it pertains to Armstrong. And I think this is consistent with several of the public statements that Tygart made over the weekend in various interviews (e.g., the USA Today interview).
USADA appears to be taking the view that Armstrong's case is finished and final (at least at the USADA level), and they are correct. Once USADA transmits its "reasoned decision" to UCI, WADA and others entitled to get it, that starts the clock running on the time for appeal by UCI, WADA, etc.
As such, under Section 16 of the Protocols, once the case is concluded, USADA is free to comment publicly as to any details of the case it feels are appropriate to discuss where, as here, the athlete has made public statements that USADA feels it must respond to. I think it's clear this is how Tygart justifies the round of interviews he did this past weekend. .
Further, under the WADA Code Section 8.3, USADA is required to prepare and timely transmit its "reasoned decision" setting forth the detailed reasons why it is sanctioning Armstrong. Most assume that this "reasoned decision" will have to go into great detail describing the evidence, and I agree with that. This is what "reasoned decisions" do.
I think it's safe to assume that if Mr. Tygart thinks it is advantageous to get the evidence out sooner rather than later, as he says, that he can figure out a way to craft the "reasoned decision" so that it falls within the above two guidelines and yet doesn't violate USADA's obligation to keep matters confidential concerning the Bruyneel, et.al. side of the case.
Drafting such a "reasoned decision" really wouldn't be difficult. It could be done by discussing only the evidence that pertains to Armstrong, without mentioning any of the other parties by name. While we might be able to figure out who is who among the unnamed, USADA would still technically be within the letter of law regarding confidentiality as to Bruyneel, et.al.
On balance, I think USADA is going to get the evidence as it relates only to Armstrong (and not as to Bruyneel or the others) released as soon as it can no matter what happens with Bruyneel and the others.