Lance v. USADA--Legal Subthread

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Could be but I am really not so sure about political pressure. In the end, justice is served when truth is uncovered and a penalty is applied. The fallout from a USADA "conviction" of Armstrong will be huge to him. I would imagine SCA opening new suits to recover bonus money paid, just for starters...

That alone could be part of the decision by the Los Angeles DA to halt the investigation. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens are equally big fish, backed by fishes bigger than anything in Armstrong's sea -- Major League Baseball. Those cases went to trial and look what happened -- one conviction on a minor count against Bonds.

I think the Los Angeles DA was very smart in stopping the investigation pending the USADA outcome. There is no reason why the criminal investigation against Armstrong cannot be reopened, but it probably will not.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
spetsa said:
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.
I was referring to the date set by the USADA. Thus, Sparks will rule in time for Armstrong to either accept the USADA's findings or seek arbitration.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Turner29 said:
I was referring to the date set by the USADA. Thus, Sparks will rule in time for Armstrong to either accept the USADA's findings or seek arbitration.
Again, that goes back to my original question. Is the deadline for LA to respond to USADA the 10th or the 13th?
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
"BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and
Now enters the following. The Court is advised there is presently no need for a temporary restraining order in this case, in light of Defendants' agreement to extend Armstrong's arbitration deadline by thirty days. However, because this case is unlikely to have been resolved by that date, the agreed extension is likely only to postpone the question of whether this Court should enjoin Defendants from enforcing arbitration deadline against Armstrong while the lawsuit progresses. Anticipating the need for a hearing near the end of this thirty-day period, the Court hereby SETS this case for a HEARING on current status and all pending maters on FRIDAY, AUGUST10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. If agreements between the parties subsequent to this date make such a hearing unnecessary, the parties shall advise the Court and the setting will be cancelled.

Accordingly, 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.

Signed this the 13th day of July 2012,

Sam Sparks
United States District Judge"
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Turner29 said:
Materially, it does not matter if the USADA deadline is August 10th or 13th.
Whether it is "material" or not I do not know. Common sense tells one that it very important if LA were to have to choose arbitration by the 10th (same day as hearing), unless the judge was going to rule the same day.

But what do I know....I didn't sleep at a Holliday Inn Express last night , which I am starting to believe you do regularly. Carry on with your nuanced arguments guys. I guess I should have taken the hint when asked what I was even doing in this thread.:confused:
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Race Radio said:
Political pressure got it dropped. Evidence was ignored, one guy dropped it. Good thing about USADA taking down Wonderboy is people are talking.

Itsnotover
This is Race Radio's invention. RR can't present one shred of evidence that the decision to drop the criminal investigation was (a) the result of pressure; (b) the decision of one person; or (c) that evidence was ignored.

All we know is that Birotte ANNOUNCED that the investigation was dropped and that one report stated that investigators were surprised by the announcement and that investigators thought they had a strong case built.
 
MarkvW said:
This is Race Radio's invention. RR can't present one shred of evidence that the decision to drop the criminal investigation was (a) the result of pressure; (b) the decision of one person; or (c) that evidence was ignored.

All we know is that Birotte ANNOUNCED that the investigation was dropped and that one report stated that investigators were surprised by the announcement and that investigators thought they had a strong case built.
That sounds like several "shreds" of evidence.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
spetsa said:
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.
The judge didn't set a hearing. The judge cleared off space on his schedule so that a hearing or hearings could be held at that time IF a party makes a motion and schedules it.

Doubtless we'll see the Lance's injunction motion at that time. Maybe a motion to dismiss from USADA along with a motion to stay discovery until USADA's motion to dismiss / summary judgment motion is/are resolved.
 
Jul 8, 2009
187
0
0
I'm still curious about the question Mark has asked a few times about the applicability of Ted Stevens. USAC exists as a corporation completely independently of any other organization, even though it also has the status of national federation conferred on it by the USOC via Ted Stevens. In theory, USAC could have its status as a federation stripped by USOC, yet still contract with USADA for testing/adjudication.

Slaney tested positive at the Olympic Trials, so that one was pretty obvious. This seems less so. I imagine one could argue that if USAC was not an NGB as goverened by Ted Stevens, that it would not have the same relationship with the UCI; that could mean that Ted Stevens applies. Such reasoning seems logical but not a slam-dunk. I still agree with everyone who says it does apply, I'd just like to know the exact mechanism by which it applies legally.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
MarkvW said:
The judge didn't set a hearing. The judge cleared off space on his schedule so that a hearing or hearings could be held at that time IF a party makes a motion and schedules it.

Doubtless we'll see the Lance's injunction motion at that time. Maybe a motion to dismiss from USADA along with a motion to stay discovery until USADA's motion to dismiss / summary judgment motion is/are resolved.
The following is quoted multiple times in both threads:

"Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is SET for a HEARING on ALL PENDING MATTERS on FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 2012"

But obviously I know nothing about the law and I must not comprehend what I read either.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
MarkvW said:
The judge didn't set a hearing. The judge cleared off space on his schedule so that a hearing or hearings could be held at that time IF a party makes a motion and schedules it.

Doubtless we'll see the Lance's injunction motion at that time. Maybe a motion to dismiss from USADA along with a motion to stay discovery until USADA's motion to dismiss / summary judgment motion is/are resolved.
I guess the confusing thing is that he wrote it this way:
Anticipating the need for a hearing near the end of this thirty-day period, the Court hereby SETS this case for a HEARING oncurrent status and all pending matters on FRIDAY, AUGUST 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. If agreements between the parties subsequent to this date make such a hearing unnecessary, the parties shall advise the Court and the setting will be canceled.
http://www.bouldercriminallawadvisor.com/files/2012/07/Lance-v.-USADA-Order.pdf

It sounds as though it is scheduled already, but does his usage of "setting" denote that he is merely leaving a place open?

Either way, it does seem we are down a rabbit hole here. I am not sure this argument is getting anything anywhere. There are two outcomes possible:

1. There is some settlement of the question without the court's input.
2. The court will make a ruling on the complaint.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I guess the confusing thing is that he wrote it this way:


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

It sounds as though it is scheduled already, but does his usage of "setting" denote that he is merely leaving a place open?

Either way, it does seem we are down a rabbit hole here. I am not sure this argument is getting anything anywhere. There are two outcomes possible:

1. There is some settlement of the question without the court's input.
2. The court will make a ruling on the complaint.
Thanks, that puts some clarification to things.
To #1: USADA chooses not to pursue charges (unlikely) or LA decides not to wait for the court to rule on the validity of his argument and chooses arbitration (even more unlikely)

To #2: Would the judge have done his research prior to the hearing and be prepared to rule on the spot? (Neccessary if the USADA deadline is in fact the 10th)

Still, no one has attempted to answer my question in regards to when the deadline for LA to respond to the USADA actually is set for. I would think that this is very important, if the judge would not be prepared to rule on the 10th.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I guess the confusing thing is that he wrote it this way:


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

It sounds as though it is scheduled already, but does his usage of "setting" denote that he is merely leaving a place open?

Either way, it does seem we are down a rabbit hole here. I am not sure this argument is getting anything anywhere. There are two outcomes possible:

1. There is some settlement of the question without the court's input.
2. The court will make a ruling on the complaint.
My bad. I should have explained. It's set for a status hearing. There, the parties can address scheduling and procedural stuff. Nothing big will happen without motions, though.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
spetsa said:
Whether it is "material" or not I do not know. Common sense tells one that it very important if LA were to have to choose arbitration by the 10th (same day as hearing), unless the judge was going to rule the same day.

But what do I know....I didn't sleep at a Holliday Inn Express last night , which I am starting to believe you do regularly. Carry on with your nuanced arguments guys. I guess I should have taken the hint when asked what I was even doing in this thread.:confused:
The reason why I said the date is immaterial is that all Lance Armstrong needs to do to satisfy the USADA deadline is to make a decision either by the end of Friday, August 10th or Monday, August 13th, WHICHEVER is the deadline. Judge Sparks ruling at 2:00 PM on August 10th will provide ample time for either. Perhaps instead of attacking others, you could take some time and do some research if that date really matters to you.

Also, do us all a favor. Stop flaming me. There has been some confusion over dates (20 days, 30 days, August 10th) and that was cleared up. I straightforwardly admitted my own mistake and thanked the correction.

You have done little to substantiate anything, by that I mean provide a direct citation to anything you say. If English is not your first language, please let us know, so we can lower our prose a level or two.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
I guess the confusing thing is that he wrote it this way:


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

It sounds as though it is scheduled already, but does his usage of "setting" denote that he is merely leaving a place open?

Either way, it does seem we are down a rabbit hole here. I am not sure this argument is getting anything anywhere. There are two outcomes possible:

1. There is some settlement of the question without the court's input.
2. The court will make a ruling on the complaint.
#1 is highly unlike given Lance Armstrong would have to admit to something.

#2 Let's hope so.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Turner29 said:
The reason why I said the date is immaterial is that all Lance Armstrong needs to do to satisfy the USADA deadline is to make a decision either by the end of Friday, August 10th or Monday, August 13th, WHICHEVER is the deadline. Judge Sparks ruling at 2:00 PM on August 10th will provide ample time for either. Perhaps instead of attacking others, you could take some time and do some research if that date really matters to you.

Also, do us all a favor. Stop flaming me. There has been some confusion over dates (20 days, 30 days, August 10th) and that was cleared up. I straightforwardly admitted my own mistake and thanked the correction.

You have done little to substantiate anything, by that I mean provide a direct citation to anything you say. If English is not your first language, please let us know, so we can lower our prose a level or two.
To the last paragraph; I have asked questions, which provides very little opportunity to cite anything, English is my first language and if you really think that you need to "lower your prose a level or two", FU.

Maybe if all of you "legal experts" would stop contradicting each other, those of us whom are merely simpletons would not ask questions that are so far below your advanced:rolleyes: intellect.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
MarkvW said:
This is Race Radio's invention. RR can't present one shred of evidence that the decision to drop the criminal investigation was (a) the result of pressure; (b) the decision of one person; or (c) that evidence was ignored.

All we know is that Birotte ANNOUNCED that the investigation was dropped and that one report stated that investigators were surprised by the announcement and that investigators thought they had a strong case built.
:D

This is going to be fun
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Race Radio said:
:D

This is going to be fun
I don't understand how impugning the integrity of Mr. Birotte is "fun."

I'm not quibbling about your "itsnotover" meme. I'd be glad if it is not. I just don't see any sense in your character attack on the US Attorney.
 
MarkvW said:
I don't understand how impugning the integrity of Mr. Birotte is "fun."

I'm not quibbling about your "itsnotover" meme. I'd be glad if it is not. I just don't see any sense in your character attack on the US Attorney.
What integrity? He is the muppet that let Angelo Mozilo walk free after Congress determined that Countrywide was a fraud factory.
 
Jun 18, 2012
165
0
0
US District Attorneys are political positions. Appointed by the President. There are agendas in many cases on what tail they will chase. Just the facts.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
spetsa said:
To the last paragraph; I have asked questions, which provides very little opportunity to cite anything, English is my first language and if you really think that you need to "lower your prose a level or two", FU.

Maybe if all of you "legal experts" would stop contradicting each other, those of us whom are merely simpletons would not ask questions that are so far below your advanced:rolleyes: intellect.
:rolleyes:

We still have not seen you do any digging to find your own answers, given the exact date of the USADA's extension seems so important to you and nobody else.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
PedalPusher said:
US District Attorneys are political positions. Appointed by the President. There are agendas in many cases on what tail they will chase. Just the facts.
While I certainly agree, Birotte was appointed in 2009 by Obama and he could have stopped any investigation into Lance Armstrong before it went to Grand Jury, saving himself obvious negative publicity.

Therefore, I continue to maintain this case was not dropped because of pressure by Armstrong or any of his supporters. There was another reason and to reiterate, that reason could very well be it makes much more sense for the USADA to first take action against Armstrong.

However, if anyone has a specific theory on political influence, please elaborate the connection.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/spotlight/birotte.html
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Turner29 said:
While I certainly agree, Birotte was appointed in 2009 by Obama and he could have stopped any investigation into Lance Armstrong before it went to Grand Jury, saving himself obvious negative publicity.

Therefore, I continue to maintain this case was not dropped because of pressure by Armstrong or any of his supporters. There was another reason and to reiterate, that reason could very well be it makes much more sense for the USADA to first take action against Armstrong.

However, if anyone has a specific theory on political influence, please elaborate the connection.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/spotlight/birotte.html
Please start a new thread for that. It was already done over and over and over in another thread.
 
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
Turner29 said:
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.
The only difference I can see between a 10th or 13th deadline is how much time Armstrong has to run to a higher court should Sparks rule against him on the 10th.

I'm going to assume that USADA will file a motion to dismiss on jurisdiction and ripeness, citing Stephens. I'll also predict a clean win on that motion.

Thus Armstrong's choices will be (a) quit; (b) arbitrate; (c) try to find a higher court willing delay the inevitable.

-dB
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
fmk_RoI The Clinic 23

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS