Lance v. USADA--Legal Subthread

[PedalPusher]

http://www.bouldercriminallawadvisor.com/files/2012/07/Lance-v.-USADA-Order.pdf

Actually everyone is half right. The judge ordered that if Lance and USADA can't come to an agreement, there will be a hearing on the matter on that day. He states in his order that he doubts Lance will agree to arbitration but if there is an agreement between the parties, the hearing will be canceled.

So, no movement by Lance or USADA before the 10th, we go to court!

 

[spetsa]

All LA must do by August 10th is either seek arbitration or accept the USADA findings. Under current law the arbitration decision is binding but can be appealed to the CAS. Since the USADA is highly confident of its legal position, I doubt they will wait for a decision by Judge Sparks, nor do I think they should.

I am not trying to be nitpicky but show me were you are getting the idea that LA has to state his intentions in regards to the arbitration, on the same day that Judge Sparks set the hearing for. As for the procedures outlined in USADA code, I am very well eduacated on the options that LA has and they are not governed by any "current law", they are laid out in the agreement that a license holder enters into with USAC.

 

[knewcleardaze]

There will be some sort of sealed agreement. This will quietly go away.
A great many people have a very short attention span.

 

[Turner29]

I am not trying to be nitpicky but show me were you are getting the idea that LA has to state his intentions in regards to the arbitration, on the same day that Judge Sparks set the hearing for. As for the procedures outlined in USADA code, I am very well eduacated on the options that LA has and they are not governed by any "current law", they are laid out in the agreement that a license holder enters into with USAC.

I have no idea what you mean by "LA has to state his intentions in regards to the arbitration, on the same day that Judge Sparks set the hearing for."

All I said is that due to a 30-day extension granted by the USADA, Lance Armstrong has by August 10th to either accept the USADA's decision or enter into arbitration.

That date, August 10th, does not coincide with any date set by Judge Sparks. Moreover, any date that may have been set by Judge Sparks is moot, since LA has already refiled a federal suit against the USADA.

 

[Deagol]

Someone ought to post this on LA's Facebook page or something like that .....

Good find Turner!


http://www.usacycling.org/health-anti-doping.htm


"By using a USA Cycling license, you agree to know and abide by the applicable rules and regulations of USA Cycling and the UCI, including the anti-doping rules and procedures as set forth by USADA, the UCI or WADA and that you agree to submit to any drug test organized under the rules by the UCI, USA Cycling, USADA, or the official anti-doping authority of a foreign country where you are competing."

 

[Turner29]

LOL! Anyone a "friend" of his?

 

[Deagol]

LOL! Anyone a "friend" of his?

Haha, some were here but seem to have been banned for trolling

 

[spetsa]

I have no idea what you mean by "LA has to state his intentions in regards to the arbitration, on the same day that Judge Sparks set the hearing for."

All I said is that due to a 30-day extension granted by the USADA, Lance Armstrong has by August 10th to either accept the USADA's decision or enter into arbitration.

That date, August 10th, does not coincide with any date set by Judge Sparks. Moreover, any date that may have been set by Judge Sparks is moot, since LA has already refiled a federal suit against the USADA.

What was the original date of the deadline set, by USAC , for LA and the others named to declare whether or not he was going to go forward with arbitration?

Do you realise that the date of August 10th, has nothing to do with LA's original filing, but was a date set by the Judge for a hearing in regards to the refiling of the lawsuit?

I may not know much, but I think that you should freshen your memory in regards to this whole situation. Your responses are making you look as though you are somewhat confused.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

There will be some sort of sealed agreement. This will quietly go away.
A great many people have a very short attention span.

I just don't think so. It doesn't seem to me that the USADA is in the slightest afraid of taking this all the way because from everything I have read, they seem quite confident in their case. Sure they could be overly confident, but I think this time, the evidence they have lined up is devastating. Why would they, as the body charged with enforcing the prohibition against doping, quietly allow the biggest doping fraud ever to have been charged in cycling to go away without making a point?

I think Lance's only shot is to accept the ban and control the PR by keeping that evidence from ever seeing the light of a proceeding. And I am not thinking the USADA will willingly agree to keep things quiet conditionally. No, they brought this case to make a statement that organized doping that like that undertaken by the people listed in the letter will result in real consequences. Quietly letting this die is not going to do that.

Maybe I am wrong, but that is how I read the tea leaves.

 

[Turner29]

What was the original date of the deadline set, by USAC , for LA and the others named to declare whether or not he was going to go forward with arbitration?

Do you realise that the date of August 10th, has nothing to do with LA's original filing, but was a date set by the Judge for a hearing in regards to the refiling of the lawsuit?

I may not know much, but I think that you should freshen your memory in regards to this whole situation. Your responses are making you look as though you are somewhat confused.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/s...g-gets-extension-from-anti-doping-agency.html

Please note the article, July 11th, refers to "Wednesday," the previous day -- July 10th.

Unless my mind is totally gone, July 10th plus 30 days = August 10th.

Regarding the lawsuit:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/11/us-usa-armstrong-doping-idUSBRE86A04N20120711

"On Monday, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed Armstrong's 80-page lawsuit as a "lengthy and bitter polemic," but gave his lawyers up to 20 days to file an amended complaint."

The Monday referenced is Monday, July 9th. That day, plus 20 days, would be July 29th. If you presume the Judge meant 20 business days, that date would be August 6th.

Moreover, I never said August 10th had anything to do with LA's original filing. Do us all a favor here. If you feel you need to correct somebody, do so with facts and without demeaning statements, especially when your knowledge is patently incorrect.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/s...g-gets-extension-from-anti-doping-agency.html

Please note the article, July 11th, refers to "Wednesday," the previous day -- July 10th.

Unless my mind is totally gone, July 10th plus 30 days = August 10th.

Regarding the lawsuit:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/11/us-usa-armstrong-doping-idUSBRE86A04N20120711

"On Monday, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed Armstrong's 80-page lawsuit as a "lengthy and bitter polemic," but gave his lawyers up to 20 days to file an amended complaint."

The Monday referenced is Monday, July 9th. That day, plus 20 days, would be July 29th. If you presume the Judge meant 20 business days, that date would be August 6th.

Moreover, I never said August 10th had anything to do with LA's original filing. Do us all a favor here. If you feel you need to correct somebody, do so with facts and without demeaning statements, especially when your knowledge is patently incorrect.

I think we all need to chill out.

As PedalPusher posted, the actual order from the court says:
"IT IS ORDERED that this case is SET for a HEARING on ALL PENDING MATTERS on FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the United States Courthouse, 200 W. Eighth Street, Austin, Texas."

The judge did set the date of August 10 as the date where, if the parties are unable to come to a resolution themselves, then "the Court hereby SETS this case for a HEARING on current status and all pending matters on FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m."

So the August date referred to by RR was from this order made by judge Sparks. Yes, it also happens to relate to the 30 days given by USADA, but it also is the date the judge said he will deal with the issues if they cannot do so within that time frame.

Source: http://www.bouldercriminallawadvisor.com/files/2012/07/Lance-v.-USADA-Order.pdf

 

[CQmanager]

I think we all need to chill out.

As PedalPusher posted, the actual order from the court says:
"IT IS ORDERED that this case is SET for a HEARING on ALL PENDING MATTERS on FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the United States Courthouse, 200 W. Eighth Street, Austin, Texas."

The judge did set the date of August 10 as the date where, if the parties are unable to come to a resolution themselves, then "the Court hereby SETS this case for a HEARING on current status and all pending matters on FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m."

So the August date referred to by RR was from this order made by judge Sparks. Yes, it also happens to relate to the 30 days given by USADA, but it also is the date the judge said he will deal with the issues if they cannot do so within that time frame.

Source: http://www.bouldercriminallawadvisor.com/files/2012/07/Lance-v.-USADA-Order.pdf

Funny how all the "(insert word) news" are always scheduled to be released on Friday afternoon ... the Wall Street style ...

Expecting some "shocking" outcome ... one way or the other ... whether you like it or not, it is a 50/50 coin flip ... the US legal system ... live and learn

 

[spetsa]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/12/s...g-gets-extension-from-anti-doping-agency.html

Please note the article, July 11th, refers to "Wednesday.................................snip

OK, the article you quoted from the 11th of July, referncing the day prior , being Weds the 10th, also states that LA had until Sat, which would be the 13th. Back to my original question. Did the 30 day extension begin the day it was announced (10th) or was it an extension from the original deadline. If it was the latter, that leaves a few days after the hearing. If I am correct, LA would then have a few days to decide on an arbitration hearing or walk away guilty, if the judge were to throw it outon the 10th. My second question, under the latter scenario, is whether LA would be forced to make a decision in regards to arbitration, if the judge takes longer to rule than the 13th?, or the 10th for that matter?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Funny how all the "(insert word) news" are always scheduled to be released on Friday afternoon ... the Wall Street style ...

Expecting some "shocking" outcome ... one way or the other ... whether you like it or not, it is a 50/50 coin flip ... the US legal system ... live and learn

Oh, I have pontificated about what I think the outcome SHOULD be, but fully recognize that actually placing a bet on it would be dumber than betting that Farrar would win the tour...or even a stage

 

[Turner29]

Funny how all the "(insert word) news" are always scheduled to be released on Friday afternoon ... the Wall Street style ...

Expecting some "shocking" outcome ... one way or the other ... whether you like it or not, it is a 50/50 coin flip ... the US legal system ... live and learn

Thank you. That kind of constructive research I very much appreciate as it clears up the misunderstanding.

 

[Turner29]

Also, I am surprise that Judge Sparks would feel he needs to rule on LA's suite prior to August 10th.

 

[zigmeister]

If these ridiculous threads and confusion about who/how/what etc...has jurisdiction, authority and control over the situation isn't enough to confirm what a complete joke the entire situation is, I don't know what would make it clear enough for people?!?!

Every one of these organization are private non-complulsory entities and put on private races and competitions and are in the business to make money. That includes the Olympics, not just USA Cycling, UCI etc...

Nobody is coerced and required by law to go and be a member and hold a license that is granted by the UCI/USAC. It is voluntary that you go and join and compete. Thus, you have to follow their rules, as convoluted and idiotic they are at times due to the internal politics, egos and power struggles that are involved with these types of organizations.

This is why Armstrong's best argument at this point is that USADA is acting as an "agent" and extension of the US Government due to the massive amount of funding they receive, and inferences they are part of the government on their own website. Thus, he is asking for due process as required by Federal Law and the jurisdiction under which it would fall.

And since the Feds couldn't even get a grand jury to indict him and proceed to a trial, that would make USADA's case worthless also, because they have nothing new to provide regarding evidence. If they did, the Feds would have subpoenaed the information and have it also to build their case. Maybe they did have this information, but found it worthless in a Federal Court.

Thus, USADA, knowing they don't have to provide any due process under Federal law, decided to carry on and execute their vendetta against Armstrong and company and go forward with their circus and "procedure/process" and just hand out the already forgone conclusions and punishment we all know are coming.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If these ridiculous threads and confusion about who/how/what etc...has jurisdiction, authority and control over the situation isn't enough to confirm what a complete joke the entire situation is, I don't know what would make it clear enough for people?!?!

Every one of these organization are private non-complulsory entities and put on private races and competitions and are in the business to make money. That includes the Olympics, not just USA Cycling, UCI etc...

Nobody is coerced and required by law to go and be a member and hold a license that is granted by the UCI/USAC. It is voluntary that you go and join and compete. Thus, you have to follow their rules, as convoluted and idiotic they are at times due to the internal politics, egos and power struggles that are involved with these types of organizations.

This is why Armstrong's best argument at this point is that USADA is acting as an "agent" and extension of the US Government due to the massive amount of funding they receive, and inferences they are part of the government on their own website. Thus, he is asking for due process as required by Federal Law and the jurisdiction under which it would fall.

And since the Feds couldn't even get a grand jury to indict him and proceed to a trial, that would make USADA's case worthless also, because they have nothing new to provide regarding evidence. If they did, the Feds would have subpoenaed the information and have it also to build their case. Maybe they did have this information, but found it worthless in a Federal Court.

Thus, USADA, knowing they don't have to provide any due process under Federal law, decided to carry on and execute their vendetta against Armstrong and company and go forward with their circus and "procedure/process" and just hand out the already forgone conclusions and punishment we all know are coming.

Thanks for sharing. Your opinion is very important to us. Please leave a message and we will return your call as soon as it is convenient.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Since we have this new subthread, I'd be curious to know, if Armstrong's case gets tossed out, how that would affect past, and future USADA anti-doping cases and sanctions. For example, couldn't Kayle Leogrande sue USADA, and seek to have his "property" returned? After all, he too was a professional bike racer who "never tested positive" either.

 

[Benotti69]

Since we have this new subthread, I'd be curious to know, if Armstrong's case gets tossed out, how that would affect past, and future USADA anti-doping cases and sanctions. For example, couldn't Kayle Leogrande sue USADA, and seek to have his "property" returned? After all, he too was a professional bike racer who "never tested positive" either.

If it is tossed out in favour of Armstrong, does that not open the floodgates?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If it is tossed out in favour of Armstrong, does that not open the floodgates?

It would depend on how the ruling was written, and what happens on appeal, because the next step would be an appeal by USADA.

 

[Race Radio]

Since we have this new subthread, I'd be curious to know, if Armstrong's case gets tossed out, how that would affect past, and future USADA anti-doping cases and sanctions. For example, couldn't Kayle Leogrande sue USADA, and seek to have his "property" returned? After all, he too was a professional bike racer who "never tested positive" either.

USADA would be the least of the issues. It would cause chaos in the many industries that have similar agreements

 

[Turner29]

Thanks for sharing. Your opinion is very important to us. Please leave a message and we will return your call as soon as it is convenient.

Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the Los Angeles DA shut down the investigation of Lance Armstrong and the Grand Jury never voted on evidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/s...utors-drop-lance-armstrong-investigation.html

I believe the Los Angeles DA did something very smart and took a lesson from the Roger Clemens case. Since no agency found Clemens guilty of doping, the DA in this case had the double challenge of proving doping and perjury. Therefore, the DA unilaterally stopped the investigation and without explanation. Why?

The Los Angeles DA most likely came across strong evidence of Armstrong's involvement in doping. However, given the obvious fact that jurors are easily swayed by high-profile defendant attorneys, a much smarter move is to turn over doping evidence to the USADA and let that process proceed.

Once the USADA concludes Armstrong doped, proving fraud and conspiracy should be fairly straightforward.

 

[Race Radio]

Please correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the Los Angeles DA shut down the investigation of Lance Armstrong and the Grand Jury never voted on evidence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/s...utors-drop-lance-armstrong-investigation.html

I believe the Los Angeles DA did something very smart and took a lesson from the Roger Clemens case. Since no agency found Clemens guilty of doping, the DA in this case had the double challenge of proving doping and perjury. Therefore, the DA unilaterally stopped the investigation and without explanation. Why?

The Los Angeles DA most likely came across strong evidence of Armstrong's involvement in doping. However, given the obvious fact that jurors are easily swayed by high-profile defendant attorneys, a much smarter move is to turn over doping evidence to the USADA and let that process proceed.

Once the USADA concludes Armstrong doped, proving fraud and conspiracy should be fairly straightforward.

Political pressure got it dropped. Evidence was ignored, one guy dropped it. Good thing about USADA taking down Wonderboy is people are talking.

Itsnotover

 

[spetsa]

Also, I am surprise that Judge Sparks would feel he needs to rule on LA's suite prior to August 10th.

Why would he rule before a hearing that HE set the time and date for? No one is claiming or asking whether or not that would happen.