Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Digger]

The CAS ruled that Floyd owed the USADA costs related to his appeal to the CAS. Their reasoning being that his was basically a garbage appeal - 100s of pages of every argument out there.

Appeals are supposed to be just that - specific objections to rulings made by lower bodies. For example 'the lower panel shouldn't have allowed x evidence because of y.' Appeals are not supposed to be a complete retrial of the case.

The ability to order defendants (or plaintiffs) to repay costs related to frivilous cases, or frivilous litigation tactics is one of the best ways to guard against said tactics. Parties engage in them at their own financial risk.

This information is publicly available - CAS spelled out their reasoning when they made the award.

So why are you babling about stenographers and calling out Betsy? Either you are ignorant of the issues, or are being intentionally oblique to create conflict. Neither option reflects well on you.

You have no knowledge of the case, how USADA works, how this case worked out so please stop making a fool of yourself...and I mentioned betsy because she said on facebook that Floyd should repay USADA...and I said, for what...for them breaking rules themselves, In a whole host of areas.

Landis' lawyers might also have expected a fair hearing - not one where the decision was accidentally emailed out before the end.

 

[Digger]

Yes they did. It is common for the loser to pay costs in an arbitration.



Isn't this the Armstrong thread? Maybe somebody can set up a thread for discusing the Landis case and baiting Betsy?

no one is baiting here except you - where you will no run to the mods no doubt

betsy said on facebook that Floyd should repay money to usada - I asked for what...if that's too much for you, that's not my problem.

But thanks for proving my point - my first post on this matter yesterday I said can we have this discussion without race jumping into to stir and insult.

 

[Digger]

You need to stop listening to Johan and Lance. The reason they are 6 months is because the WADA code says they are supposed to be 6 months. It has nothing to do with a "PR disaster" it is because of the rules.

Says the guy who is a mouthpiece of JV (word for word)...but anyway at least you accept that USADA initially didn't even follow WADA code with their non bans...lifetime of doping and no bans - USADA is awesome! But look they got lance, that's all that matters - shame they haven't managed to get 'the most talented American rider since Lemond' - Horner...

And is there another part of the rules where it says winter bans, after the tour...seriously comical radio

 

[Bluenote]

I don't disagree with what you write and the rules should be applied equally among the participants.

For example if USADA rely on the testimony of Papp and LeMond and use it in the their cross of Landis but LeMond & Papp refused to be crossed by Landis's counsel you have problem. The rules of arbitration have not been followed.

If you look to the CAS hearing whereby the lab technician stating that her signature had seemingly been forged on the lab sheet and then after a brief recess she reappears and recants her original answer (after being asked again by USADAs counsel) then you have a problem, a big one.

So when a "misconduct" award is then applied then you it becomes very suspect and hence why CAS backed away from it once it went to Federal Court.

And by what is outlined its not "dispute resolution' but the arbitrary application of rules to force a predetermined outcome.

Suggest you broaden your reading scope into what played out rather than relying solely on the CAS/USDA documents.

Oh, the hole gets deeper...

So a few posts above you admitted to having no idea why CAS made the award, but now you are an expert on misconduct?

And you don't think Landis should have been ordered to pay the USADAs costs and you support this with claims of misconduct by... the Arbitrators and the CAS? So under your reasoning, Landis can drag the USADA through this frivolous process, but the USADA Can't get its costs back if ... the judges make mistakes? So the USADA Gets penalized if the judges screw up? Under what legal principal does someone forfit their rights because some other party screwed up?

It's not uncommon for arbitrators (or judges) to limit certain types of testimony (or not to force other types). This is usually within the discretion of the courts and does not constitute 'misconduct.'

Look, you're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. It's one thing to say 'I don't think the SCA should be allowed to award costs,' it's another thing to say 'oh - the SCA can't award costs' and present it as fact.

You've taken a lot of your opinions - what the SCA can and can't do, what arbitration is and isn't, what the rules of the appeals process are, what constitutes misconduct - and presented them as fact. Then you've gone through logic pretzels trying to present that no, your opinions really are fact.

I think you'd be better off just stating your opinions as opinions, and trying to persuade people to them, rather than pretending like your opinions are facts and therefore are indisputable.

You throw a lot of elbows for a guy who makes basic argument mistakes like not knowing the difference between arguing opinions and facts. Maybe put down the Landis books and pick up Critical Thinking 101? Or Debate for Beginners? Seriously, this stuff is High School level persusion techniques.

 

[Bluenote]

1) You have no knowledge of the case, how USADA works, how this case worked out so please stop making a fool of yourself...

2) and I mentioned betsy because she said on facebook...

1) lol!

2) ahh, so you're here calling Betsy out because you disagree with something she said on Facebook. Well, Facebook was involved so oh - well - that makes it a serious high minded argument then! IMHO No one over the age of 16 should say 'I'm arguing about x,y,z from Facebook' with a straight face.

Why not just go to her Facebook page / post and discuss it with her there? Why wait, then bring it up here at some later date?

 

[ChrisE]

Says the guy who is a mouthpiece of JV (word for word)...but anyway at least you accept that USADA initially didn't even follow WADA code with their non bans...lifetime of doping and no bans - USADA is awesome! But look they got lance, that's all that matters - shame they haven't managed to get 'the most talented American rider since Lemond' - Horner...

And is there another part of the rules where it says winter bans, after the tour...seriously comical radio

Exactly. Does the code stipulate the 6 months must be in the offseason?

RR likes to have revisionist history and state LA had the option to testify and get 6 months. No such thing existed. This was discussed in detail back when this all went down. He knows that.

He also assumes "if only LA would have done X" that the end game is what he dreams. They wanted JB, Ferrari, etc. instead of LA? What about the next guy? That is comical. With this 6 month get out of jail free card they should have just all piled into a limousine and went a spilled to Tygart. They could have taken their 6 months starting in October.

 

[thehog]

Oh, the hole gets deeper...

So a few posts above you admitted to having no idea why CAS made the award, but now you are an expert on misconduct?

And you don't think Landis should have been ordered to pay the USADAs costs and you support this with claims of misconduct by... the Arbitrators and the CAS? So under your reasoning, Landis can drag the USADA through this frivolous process, but the USADA Can't get its costs back if ... the judges make mistakes? So the USADA Gets penalized if the judges screw up? Under what legal principal does someone forfit their rights because some other party screwed up?
It's not uncommon for arbitrators (or judges) to limit certain types of testimony (or not to force other types). This is usually within the discretion of the courts and does not constitute 'misconduct.'

Look, you're entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. It's one thing to say 'I don't think the SCA should be allowed to award costs,' it's another thing to say 'oh - the SCA can't award costs' and present it as fact.

You've taken a lot of your opinions - what the SCA can and can't do, what arbitration is and isn't, what the rules of the appeals process are, what constitutes misconduct - and presented them as fact. Then you've gone through logic pretzels trying to present that no, your opinions really are fact.

I think you'd be better off just stating your opinions as opinions, and trying to persuade people to them, rather than pretending like your opinions are facts and therefore are indisputable.

You throw a lot of elbows for a guy who makes basic argument mistakes like not knowing the difference between arguing opinions and facts. Maybe put down the Landis books and pick up Critical Thinking 101? Or Debate for Beginners? Seriously, this stuff is High School level persusion techniques.

This is not about me though, I'm not sure why you wish to get personal. We're discussing Lanids vis a vie CAS/USADA are we not? We say we discuss the facts, yes?

With regards to the bolded (I'll ignore the personal rants), Landis as anyone is afforded the right to arbitration. It can't be labeled "frivolous" by exercising that right. The same with the right to "appeal". Its clearly stated that for all that they can appeal to CAS for a final arbitrary decision.

With relation to LeMond & Papp it was not the panel who ordered them not to provide testimony, it was the individuals (and probably USADA) whom decided they would not answer questions on cross. There was also no direction from the panel other than allowing USADA to use LeMond's testimony on Landis's cross.

Its fairly straight forward and all there on deeper inspection of the facts.

 

[Bluenote]

This is not about me though, I'm not sure why you wish to get personal. We're discussing Lanids vis a vie CAS/USADA are we not? We say we discuss the facts, yes?

With regards to the bolded (I'll ignore the personal rants), Landis as anyone is afforded the right to arbitration. It can't be labeled "frivolous" by exercising that right. The same with the right to "appeal". Its clearly stated that for all that they can appeal to CAS for a final arbitrary decision.

With relation to LeMond & Papp it was not the panel who ordered them not to provide testimony, it was the individuals (and probably USADA) whom decided they would not answer questions on cross. There was also no direction from the panel other than allowing USADA to use LeMond's testimony on Landis's cross.

Its fairly straight forward and all there on deeper inspection of the facts.

Haha! So when you throw elbows it's all OK, but when I do it you're suddenly Mr. Proper! Good post Hog! Good for a laugh!!

You admit above that Lemond didn't want to undergo cross. You hypothesize - but have no proof - that the USADA orchestrated it. So you admit to having an opinion (USADA was behind it all), but then a few sentences later trying to chalk it up as inspection of facts.

The Lemond stuff is not as cut and dry as you make it. Landis' team tried to blackmail Lemond into not testifying by threatening to expose Lemond as a survivor of child sexual abuse. I can understand why Lemond would not want to 'submit' to cross by people who had treated him like that.

My opinion (or lets be clear - my opinion as a survivor of child sexual abuse) - Lemond wouldn't need some elaborate USADA conspiracy to refuse cross. He could just have been disgusted with Landis' team.

But this Lemond / Papp stuff is really forest for the trees. If I remember correctly, the arbitrators ruling didn't hinge on what Lemond said Landis said - but rather mostly on technical points about the testing process.

Your arguments keep changing on this one. First the SCA can't award costs, then costs aren't part of arbitration (?!?), then it was the arbitrators and SCA that were guilty of misconduct and now, the USADA was behind Lemond's refusal to be cross examined.

It'll be interesting to see where you move the goal posts to next.

 

[thehog]

The athlete could demand discovery, so that in a passport case, e.g., every time his passport passed the extremely loose criteria for normal that would be evidence he was clean. If he tested positive for EPO, all the times he tested negative would be introduced as exculpatory evidence.

Let’s take this even further. There’s nothing in the constitution that says taking EPO is a crime. If you have a doctor’s prescription, you can take all sorts of PEDs legally. Why should WADA even be allowed to proscribe certain substances? Doesn’t that infringe on the rights of citizens to buy, sell and consume in a free market?

Not to mention other types of organizations. Suppose every time you were banned here, hoggy, you could argue your constitutional right to free speech was infringed upon, and take CN to court. We should all be allowed to say anything we want here, right?

I think you're being a little extremist. No court (as in Armstrong's case v USADA) wants to know about positive tests etc. and the like until its gone through its natural process and route– arbitration etc.

That’s very standard and normal. There is no expectation that these types of cases start in Federal Court! But the right to appeal is standard as is to a fair hearing.

This is not shocking new information.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Perhaps the point lost with many here on the reasons why Armstrong won’t engage in legitimate settlement discussions; is Armstrong would need to discuss/settle with Floyd direct and not the Government per se.

And that’s sweet justice if there ever was such a thing!

That's what I've been saying too, he WILL NOT deal with Landis, and the thought of him possibly giving any money to Floyd, is the reason behind him fighting so vigilantly.

 

[86TDFWinner]

#howaboutbanalldopersfromridingwithmorethan1otherpersonforever



I have not forgotten how Armstrong used his position to take out his rivals and team mates who left, by asking his best buddies at UCI to target test them. And that is the tip of the iceberg of what we all know about this sociopath.

Armstrong was not some simple minded Texan who rode in professional cycling and doped along with the rest.

Stop rewriting Armstrong's history. Guy was a total selfmade******bag who deserves his life ban. Just because others didn't get similar does not lessen what Armstrong did!

Get real.

Excellent post!!

 

[86TDFWinner]

Actually they wanted to implicate Ferrari, Bruyneel, Marti, Celya, Del Moral, Steve Johnson, Och, etc...... But lance "Ain't no snitch". He knows it was a mistake.

It's a shame Och's name isn't brought up more regarding all of this, he's just as dirty as the rest of them. It's a nice thought RR and I'm with you, I just don't think these 3 see much punishment(outside of anything they've received now). I also think Comical(Carmichael) should be busted too.

It had nothing to do with the Qui Tam, it was due to arrogance. He did not realize how strong USADA's case was and thought he could bluff his way out of it as he had done in the past. On Oprah he admitted that he should have taken USADA's offer. If had it to do over he would have called his family and friends then gone in an tell them everything.

This. Plus, the thought of him giving a penny to Floyd, is why he's still fighting a losing battle. I've said this from the beginning, he's fighting in hopes of blowing through all of his $$$, so when the dust clears, he doesn't have anything to pay the US Govt or Floyd.

 

[thehog]

This. Plus, the thought of him giving a penny to Floyd, is why he's still fighting a losing battle. I've said this from the beginning, he's fighting in hopes of blowing through all of his $$$, so when the dust clears, he doesn't have anything to pay the US Govt or Floyd.

You need to be careful here. When one is staring down the barrel of a gun, having their leg shot off can be a better option than having their face blown apart - its can be see as some form of loss reduction.

Additionally, defending himself now is a means to understand what the other side has and how strong their case could potentially be. No one really settles straight off the bat and aggressive defense tactics are often associated with drawing the fox out of his hole to see what cards it has. And again spending $10m to save $20m is some form of strategy when you're on the hook for up to $60m.

We shouldn't conclude the dislike of Armstrong that his defense is similarly dislikable. He is doing what anyone in a similar position would do... defend.

You should just enjoy the **** show that will ensue whilst every last drop of information seeps out.

And, yes, masterstroke on Landis's behalf, he has managed to rope in the UCI (Hein) - that should be fun. Thus we don't want Armstrong to settle, we want this thing to play out

 

[Benotti69]

You need to be careful here. When one is staring down the barrel of a gun, having their leg shot off can be a better option than having their face blown apart - its can be see as some form of loss reduction.

Additionally, defending himself now is a means to understand what the other side has and how strong their case could potentially be. No one really settles straight off the bat and aggressive defense tactics are often associated with drawing the fox out of his hole to see what cards it has. And again spending $10m to save $20m is some form of strategy when you're on the hook for up to $60m.

We shouldn't conclude the dislike of Armstrong that his defense is similarly dislikable. He is doing what anyone in a similar position would do... defend.

You should just enjoy the **** show that will ensue whilst every last drop of information seeps out.

And, yes, masterstroke on Landis's behalf, he has managed to rope in the UCI (Hein) - that should be fun. Thus we don't want Armstrong to settle, we want this thing to play out

I strongly disagree.

He was offered a choice, be part of the solution ( albeit not a fulsome solution, but still assist) or stay part of the problem. He chose the latter.

Armstrong did major wrong in the sport. He was not the worst, but because of that still doesn't mean he didn't get his just desserts. A lifetime ban was just.

 

[thehog]

I strongly disagree.

He was offered a choice, be part of the solution ( albeit not a fulsome solution, but still assist) or stay part of the problem. He chose the latter.

Armstrong did major wrong in the sport. He was not the worst, but because of that still doesn't mean he didn't get his just desserts. A lifetime ban was just.

You misread me. I was talking not about his career of lying, cheating and doping. But his defense strategy for the case v the government. It is very normal in the manner in which he is defending himself.

Lifebans, USADA etc. is a entirely different situation.

 

[the sceptic]

The only thing that banning Lance accomplished for the sport was banning Lance. Nothing else has changed. The sport is still filled with dopers and dirty doctors. The omerta is still there. The UCI is the same.

Lance wasnt worse than any other doper. Everyone dopes for the same reason.

He was simply too dumb and had too big of an ego to figure out that going down with the ship was the wrong move. JV was smarter, and look where he is now.

But I dont think there are any other difference between the two, except the fact that JV might be a nicer guy.

 

[Nicko.]

Time and time again what he said has turned out to be the case....but it has taken time and will continue to do so...right now travis is the hero is many people's eyes...but things are slowly turning in that regard, and will continue to do so.

let lance ride! people fixated on lance riding, when the guy organising the event doped longer than lance, and negotiated a six month ban, when he was retired...

the issue here isn't doping - it's the selective application of the rules...and the selective application of doping standards to lance...you want to talk smack about lance, go right ahead, but don't profess to be anti doping if this talk doesn't veer away from lance.

The last three tours were every bit as ridiculous as anything lance did, 2013 more so, and yet some people are fixated on lance.
As regards letting lance ride - well it's like this, until there is some semblance of consistency from USADA and others, then let him ride. Because to have travis on his sermon tour, as Horner is looking for another new team is a great indicator.

#letlanceride

Rider A dopes, rider B doesn't:
A get's $fame & $glory, B get's out and can't complain.
First world problem, right? The unfair treatment of B is not an issue since A is winning on a level field

Rider A and also-ran rider C are caught and banned:
A get's banned for life, C get's 6 months.
This is major violation of the universal rights of fairness since A was clearly better than C on the level field and cheated fairly. Call in the Human Rights squadron and make sure A get's a reduction while C get's proportionally slapped on the wrist.

Let us all be on the alert for unfair punishment of cheating white male bicycle riders...

 

[Merckx index]

i think that's a bit simplistic.
george was asked to implicate another rider.
lance was asked to implicate himself.

You don’t actually know that. All we really know for sure is that LA was asked to come in and talk. And he refused to do that. Not much of a risk to come in with your lawyer and see what they want.

Tygart was well aware of LA’s legal situation. He might have made some effort to protect LA, assuming he thought LA deserved protection, from the federal case in return for LA’s accepting some kind of sanction. At that time, even the loss of a single TDF title, some kind of nolo contendere that maybe he didn’t win all those Tours squeaky clean, would have been a huge triumph for Tygart.There were all kinds of possibilities that could have been on the table.

But LA made no effort to explore them. As RR pointed out, and as all of us following the case at that time were well aware, it was all about LA’s being supremely confident that the rules that applied to others did not apply to him. We all know that at that time, LA would not have accepted a one day ban, or the loss of his 4th place in the 1998 Vuelta, let alone anything else. He publicly denied that Tygart had any power, or any right to power, over him at all.

And now, when it turns out the rules do apply to him, some here want to make an argument that Tygart was selective in his punishment. How ironic.

and lance had a lot to loose with the quitam case hanging over his head.

Yeah, funny thing, his situation was not exactly like George’s, after all, was it? Why did he have QT hanging over his head? Why didn’t George?

so now you can be a criminal, and get away with it if you 'cooperate' and snitch on others.
if you don't cooperate, you get lifetime

Criminal? Get a grip.

Also those six month bans were initially zero months...

Like most everyone else discussing this, you ignore the concept of retroactive bans. Not all bans are proactive. Contador only got about six months, too, in proactive terms. But he lost quite a bit else retroactively.

Now I agree with you that George et al should still have been punished more severely. And I think just about everyone else in the Clinic does, too, the current Gran Fondo thread is just the latest outlet for frustration in that regard. But I don’t see how doing that, or reducing LA’s ban, is going to affect current doping in the peloton. That logic evades me.

The only thing that banning Lance accomplished for the sport was banning Lance. Nothing else has changed. The sport is still filled with dopers and dirty doctors. The omerta is still there. The UCI is the same.

That may well be true, but to repeat, it doesn’t follow that by reducing LA’s ban, all those dopers will disappear. You’re conjoining two events, and implying that if the first were changed, the second would, too. But I have yet to see any reason or evidence for believing this to be the case.

If you feel sorry for LA, and think he should be allowed to compete again, fine. Actually, I made that point here a couple of years ago, saying that it would be beneficial to his mental health--his need to do something besides sit around and live in the past--if he were allowed to enter triathlons. Unlike some here, I don't think that by doing that he will be able to return to the fame and celebrity he once knew and abused.

But I don't try to rationalize this view by claiming it will be good for the sport. It won't be. It just might be good for LA, and maybe then he can find another cause--another suggestion I made a while back--and use his considerable energy to helping people.

 

[DirtyWorks]

and use his considerable energy to helping people.

That would only happen after years of intense, useful therapy. Now if 'helping' some people by gracing them with his appearance and a speech about his greatness, then he's ready to go.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And the courts are above the constitution? That's news

Besides. Abritration supposely is a form of informal dispute resolution. Not a weighted, one sided, stacked process of injustice.

I'd play "spot the ignorant poster," but I don't think anyone needs the help on this one...weak troll dude...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Rider A dopes, rider B doesn't:
A get's $fame & $glory, B get's out and can't complain.
First world problem, right? The unfair treatment of B is not an issue since A is winning on a level field

Rider A and also-ran rider C are caught and banned:
A get's banned for life, C get's 6 months.
This is major violation of the universal rights of fairness since A was clearly better than C on the level field and cheated fairly. Call in the Human Rights squadron and make sure A get's a reduction while C get's proportionally slapped on the wrist.

Let us all be on the alert for unfair punishment of cheating white male bicycle riders...

I'd say a rubber bracelet campaign is in order...what's a good color for "Who gives a f¥€k?"...yellow is already taken...

 

[Bluenote]

I'd say a rubber bracelet campaign is in order...what's a good color for "Who gives a f¥€k?"...yellow is already taken...

Brown, obviously. Wear brown if you don't give a s@&t.

 

[blackcat]

LOL i thought it was the mods who deleted your post and wrote edited by mods

but i wrote it as a joke, it was in no way serious

 

[Race Radio]

Says the guy who is a mouthpiece of JV (word for word)...but anyway at least you accept that USADA initially didn't even follow WADA code with their non bans...lifetime of doping and no bans - USADA is awesome! But look they got lance, that's all that matters - shame they haven't managed to get 'the most talented American rider since Lemond' - Horner...

And is there another part of the rules where it says winter bans, after the tour...seriously comical radio

Look we get being angry is your thing but before you crank the outrage machine to 11 you should ask Floyd why I wrote that about Chris. It was a joke.

the rest of your post is just more babble.

 

[Digger]

Look we get being angry is your thing but before you crank the outrage machine to 11 you should ask Floyd why I wrote that about Chris. It was a joke.

the rest of your post is just more babble.

because you were trying to annoy lance - yes - I know because your whole life revolves around the guy.

So yes I know - either way it reflects very badly on you.