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

[Granville57]

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.

But that's the one thing I like about the overlords stepping in: It upsets George's little soirée just a wee bit. Hincapie thought it would be fun to bring Lance to town, not to mention the added publicity and attraction of wealthy chumps willing to hand over more cash in the hopes of pedaling up alongside The Great One.

Too bad for Big George. Somebody rained on his parade.

And I couldn't be happier about that.


Tejay and the rest of the New Generation though.
FFS...

 

[Scott SoCal]

#GiveBackTheCutYouTookFromAllTheLivestrongDonations

#whosegonnapaythefuelbillformygulfstream
#andreustrategiesisafraud
#fatchicksinmichigan
#thenewlaf
#istillwonthoseraces
#diggersmybuddy
#ihaterr
#floydwillneverseeapenny

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm glad citizen.org takes precedence over the constitution

The Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional...

 

[thehog]

The Supreme Court has ruled it constitutional...

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.

 

[Merckx index]

I'm glad citizen.org takes precedence over the constitution

I’m glad professional organizations are free to make their own rules. Wouldn’t it be lovely if every time a member of some such organization had a disagreement with them, he could take them to court? Because of course our courts are currently so idle they would welcome a ton of new cases.

LA tried that, claiming he wasn’t getting due process. Imagine if every time an athlete tested positive, he could make that argument. 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?

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...

LA might have had a shorter ban, if he had agreed to cooperate. But of course you know that.

Lab procedures were circumvented, not recorded and done manually with several retires obtain the desired result.

The evidence was quite compelling.

Travis was offering Landis deals for Armstrong's head even though the case had nothing to do with Armstrong.

First, you are all for the constitution and following the procedures of federal courts, and now you are against that?

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

If arbitration were made fairer, more in line with the rest of the legal system, we could start by making the criteria for positives much looser. As it stands now, the criteria are indeed weighted, one-sided in favor of the athlete. No doubt many have been successfully prosecuted for murder on the weight of evidence that wouldn’t trip a positive.

LA passed > 200 doping tests while he was doping. Who’s kidding whom when we talk about a stacked process of injustice?

 

[grizzlee]

Seen as Betsy reads here, I want to ask her, without race radio jumping in, why you think Floyd needs to repay usada...for what? For them not following rules. For breaking chain of custody, for fabricating documents, for breaking their own rules re: Johan and Floyd's case and representation for both...for trying to get Floyd to testify against lance in 06 this rewarding usada for Their own incompetence eventhough jv says he told Tygart about USP back in 04...

Didnt know Betsy posted here. Whats her forum name?

 

[blackcat]

Didnt know Betsy posted here. Whats her forum name?

edited by mod

 

[grizzlee]

edited by mod

OH LOOKS LIKE THATS ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS!

and i obviously do not need to know

 

[blackcat]

OH LOOKS LIKE THATS ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS!

and i obviously do not need to know

just read through the last dozen or so pages and you can discern someone who has a dog in the fight. Not TexPat tho he also has a dog in the fight.

i was being facetious with my reply, I thought mods dont look kindly to outing people as it has been done before.

 

[sniper]

...
LA might have had a shorter ban, if he had agreed to cooperate. But of course you know that.
...

i think that's a bit simplistic.
george was asked to implicate another rider.
lance was asked to implicate himself.
and lance had a lot to loose with the quitam case hanging over his head.
reduced sentence, ok, but then the quitam. no reduction there even if he'd cooperated.
sure, lance should've cooperated, but still the double standards are staggering.
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

 

[grizzlee]

just read through the last dozen or so pages and you can discern someone who has a dog in the fight. Not TexPat tho he also has a dog in the fight.

i was being facetious with my reply, I thought mods dont look kindly to outing people as it has been done before.

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

 

[Race Radio]

i think that's a bit simplistic.
george was asked to implicate another rider.
lance was asked to implicate himself.
and lance had a lot to loose with the quitam case hanging over his head.
reduced sentence, ok, but then the quitam. no reduction there even if he'd cooperated.
sure, lance should've cooperated, but still the double standards are staggering.
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

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 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.

 

[sniper]

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 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.

fair points.
still, Digger's point, to which Merckx Index replied, is understandable.
Several aspects of the USADA process against Lance are hard to swallow, including the mild treatment of guys like Hincapie and the Garmin boys, considering they certainly didn't tell the whole truth. And very annoying in this regard is Tygart's public vouching for the truthfulness of the affidavits, according to which everybody harmoniously stopped doping in 06 or 07, some even earlier (hesjedal).
You gotta believe in unicorns to believe that those affidavits were truthful.
So one gets the impression that guys like Hincapie were cut major slack, not for telling "everything", but for implicating Lance.

 

[Digger]

Also those six month bans were initially zero months...but usada knew it would be a pr disaster and the Uci would use it against them as there was a fight for jurisdiction That summer...
Also Travis let these guys serve their bans in winter and they managed to negotiate being able to ride the tour that year. How can anyone be ok with this...

 

[D-Queued]

OH LOOKS LIKE THATS ON A NEED TO KNOW BASIS!

and i obviously do not need to know

Betsy doesn't hide who she is, and she does post here.

Even recently. Shouldn't be too hard to find.

TexPat also posts here, and makes no secret about who he is.

Dave.

 

[Bluenote]

Firstly I was talking about the USADA case - not the other issues which I have already dealt with...I know you don't like Floyd but let's focus on what Betsy said here - that Floyd should repay USADA...for what? for him paying for a court stenographer, 100%, because they said they didn't want one, yet then insisting they get the transcripts each night....just one small example.

You say he basked USADA to bring all these people without any intention of using them...where is your source for this.

Because in the end USADA used PHONE testimony for many of these witnesses....just like they did with other cases.

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.

 

[thehog]

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.

CAS did not impose a cost sanction on Mr. Landis but rather imposed an arbitrary $100,000 sanction for "litigation misconduct".

Not sure where CAS got the misconduct element from but they later dropped it once Landis went to Federal Court. It was neither valid or legal.

Suggest you do you're own reading rather than making assertions of "ignorance".

The Panel not only imposed the same two-year ineligibility sanction, stripping Landis of his Tour de France title, it also imposed a $100,000 sanction against Landis personally for “litigation misconduct.” The Panel took a particular affront to Landis’ “unfounded allegations of misconduct” against the French laboratory. The tone of what may have appealed in the public versus the CAS hearing was markedly different. Landis’ own party-appointed arbitrator, Jan Paulsson, appeared to admonish Landis’ counsel for elaborate and unsupported assertions of serious claims. The CAS award cited Paulsson’s own statements from the hearing:

But I think this is the time in the post hearing briefs not so much for prose, but for references because it would be of assistance to the arbitrators in considering the rhetoric of persuasion which we’ve heard today . . . if [Landis’ counsel] continues to pursue themes of bias in the lab and cover-up in light of the evidence of these hearings, it would be handy not to have a lot of adjectives about it, but just notice of what is the evidence of those propositions, in objective form.

 

[Race Radio]

Also those six month bans were initially zero months...but usada knew it would be a pr disaster and the Uci would use it against them as there was a fight for jurisdiction That summer...
Also Travis let these guys serve their bans in winter and they managed to negotiate being able to ride the tour that year. How can anyone be ok with this...

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.

 

[Alpe73]

or are being intentionally oblique to create conflict.

Guru envy ... and modelling ... so sweet. Someone's gonna be flattered.

Oh yeah ... why does Digger do this? He has an opinion, just like anybody else on this sports banter board, including Betsy.

 

[Race Radio]

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

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

pursuant to CAS Rule 65.3, the Panel has discretion to make an award of costs as follows:

"The costs of the parties, witnesses, experts and interpreters shall be advanced by the parties. In the award, the Panel shall decide which party shall bear them or in what proportion the parties shall share them, taking into account the outcome of the proceedings, as well as the conduct and
financial resources of the parties. "

289. Taking into account the discretionary factors listed in this Rule the Pane! awards costs of USD100,000 to the Respondent because:

There was no evidence that the Respondent engaged in "Htigation misconduct" as argued by the Appellant. On the contrary, as stated in Section VIII C of this Award, if there was any htigation misconduct it may be ascribed to the Appellant;

Ahhough the Appellant had the right to pursue a comprehensive de novo appeal in such an important matter, all of its multiple defenses have been rejected as unfounded. All that the Appellant has established after a wide-ranging attack on LNDD is that there were some minor procedural imperfections. This was not surprising in view of the unprecedented scope and intensity of the technical challenges made against LNDD by the Appellant and his witnesses;

The Appellant chose not to eliminate any of his challenges after their rejection by the AAA Tribunal and it compelled the Respondent to contest the same very wide range of issues on this appeal as had already been addressed below, as well as some additional contentions. The Appellant should have presented a much more focused challenge before this Panel especially since a number of his challenges were barely
arguable;

The Appellant gave notice requiring a number of witnesses to be present in person for cross-examination in New York but then elected not to call them thus causing the Respondent to incur significant and uhimately unnecessary cost.

In addition, the Appellant chose to pursue in its post-hearing brief serious allegations of misconduct against LNDD which had not only been rejected by the AAA Tribunal but in respect of which no sufficient evidence had been adduced before this Panel;

In the foregoing circumstances the Respondent is entitled to some compensation for part of its attorneys fees and therefore costs in the sum of USD 100,000 are awarded to the Respondent.

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

 

[Bluenote]

Not sure where CAS got the misconduct element from

Suggest you do you're own reading rather than making assertions of "ignorance".

CAS explained where they got the misconduct from - abuse of the appeals process.

I suggest you take your own advice. Then you'dunderstand the CAS' reasoning (CAS thought x constituted misconduct) - even if you disagree with it. But you admit to not knowing CAS' position.

Not wanting to litigate the award in US Courts and being wrong are two different things. Courts commonly rule that parties have to pay legal fees and court costs. If I remember correctly, Armstrong recently got hit with one of those.

 

[thehog]

Oh yeah ... why does Digger do this? He has an opinion, just like anybody else on this sports banter board, including Betsy.

Yes, here's me thinking arbitration was dispute resolution. Not a place to declare winners / losers and impose non-valid cost sanctions, (which were appropriately dropped.)

Although some wish to have them re-imposed? Not sure why, a settlement had already taken place via Federal Court.

Life.

 

[thehog]

CAS explained where they got the misconduct from - abuse of the appeals process.

I suggest you take your own advice. Then you'dunderstand the CAS' reasoning (CAS thought x constituted misconduct) - even if you disagree with it. But you admit to not knowing CAS' position.

Not wanting to litigate the award in US Courts and being wrong are two different things. Courts commonly rule that parties have to pay legal fees and court costs. If I remember correctly, Armstrong recently got hit with one of those.

Yes, here's me thinking arbitration was dispute resolution. Not a place to declare winners / "losers" and impose non-valid cost sanctions, (which were appropriately dropped).

Although some wish to have them re-imposed? Not sure why, a settlement had already taken place via Federal Court.

Life.

 

[Bluenote]

Yes, here's me thinking arbitration was dispute resolution. Not a place to declare winners / "losers" and impose non-valid cost sanctions, (which were appropriately dropped).

Although some wish to have them re-imposed? Not sure why, a settlement had already taken place via Federal Court.

Life.

The first rule of holes is to quit digging.

Going to arbitration to determine if Landis doped or not and gets to keep his TdF title or not is inherently about determining "winners and losers." Or - winner vs not winner.

Part of resolving disputes is finding remidies - which can include financial awards, damages, penalties and interest.

So you have your opinion of what arbitration and the CAS' process should be. But that does not square with what arbitration is - and what the CAS' rules allow (cost awards).

It is very different to say 'I don't think arbitration rules should allow this' versus saying 'well, arbitration rules clearly allow cost awards - but that's not what arbitration is about! I'm right and all those rules don't mean anything!'

Landis' lawyers knew the rules, yet chose to engage risky appeals tactics.

 

[thehog]

The first rule of holes is to quit digging.

Going to arbitration to determine if Landis doped or not and gets to keep his TdF title or not is inherently about determining "winners and losers." Or - winner vs not winner.

Part of resolving disputes is finding remidies - which can include financial awards, damages, penalties and interest.

So you have your opinion of what arbitration and the CAS' process should be. But that does not square with what arbitration is - and what the CAS' rules allow (cost awards).

It is very different to say 'I don't think arbitration rules should allow this' versus saying 'well, arbitration rules clearly allow cost awards - but that's not what arbitration is about! I'm right and all those rules don't mean anything!'

Landis' lawyers knew the rules, yet chose to engage risky appeals tactics.

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.