The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back...

[mountainrman]

For those who keep stating Armstrong can be indicted for perjury, even SCA lawyers don't think so because of the SOL some of us mentioned. See the last para in this where Tillotson says so.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2012/10/30/lance-armstrong-perjury-doping/1668765/

Their strategy seems to be - to find any pretext for opening an action, but not then expecting it to be contested at all, because Armstrong would be forced under oath, so forcing him into a rock or a hard place - either no contest so have to pay up, or a new perjury charge based on that oath. The hard part is getting leave to do so, and I am not convinced it can be reopened - courts don't like overturning such settlements - so persuading a judge to reopen it will not be easy.

Depending on what sworn depositions he made - he may not be so lucky in the UK , since a perjury charge based in the times libel action, may yet have teeth, and the british press have a history of getting liars in libel put behind bars.
However - I doubt an extradition is possible.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Edited(10)

 

[Merckx index]

Armstrong doesn't want the authorities to start sniffing around perjury counts.

USADA has said several times that they may call LA as a witness in Bruyneel's arbitration. Of course he would be asked under oath if he ever doped, and other questions related to the other riders' testimony. How is he going to avoid that? This is one reason why I doubt Bruyneel will actually go through with arbitration, though thus far he's talking tough.

 

[Velodude]

For those who keep stating Armstrong can be indicted for perjury, even SCA lawyers don't think so because of the SOL some of us mentioned. See the last para in this where Tillotson says so.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2012/10/30/lance-armstrong-perjury-doping/1668765/

Their strategy seems to be - to find any pretext for opening an action, but not then expecting it to be contested at all, because Armstrong would be forced under oath, so forcing him into a rock or a hard place - either no contest so have to pay up, or a new perjury charge based on that oath. The hard part is getting leave to do so, and I am not convinced it can be reopened - courts don't like overturning such settlements - so persuading a judge to reopen it will not be easy.

Depending on what sworn depositions he made - he may not be so lucky in the UK , since a perjury charge based in the times libel action, may yet have teeth, and the british press have a history of getting liars in libel put behind bars.However - I doubt an extradition is possible.

Being acquainted with the law and a UK resident you should be aware the Times has only one action.

The civil action against Armstrong is for obtaining a judgment (settlement) through fraud. In UK obtaining a judgment through fraud has no SOL. Times will then enforce judgment against Armstrong's assets where ever located.

The perjury criminal action is a matter for the Crown not the British press. If convicted in absentia he will be persona non grata to travel.

 

[Bosco10]

USADA has said several times that they may call LA as a witness in Bruyneel's arbitration. Of course he would be asked under oath if he ever doped, and other questions related to the other riders' testimony. How is he going to avoid that? This is one reason why I doubt Bruyneel will actually go through with arbitration, though thus far he's talking tough.

I've thought about that too. Will be interesting how this all plays out. Does Bruyneel have a reputation for bluffing?

 

[MarkvW]

USADA has said several times that they may call LA as a witness in Bruyneel's arbitration. Of course he would be asked under oath if he ever doped, and other questions related to the other riders' testimony. How is he going to avoid that? This is one reason why I doubt Bruyneel will actually go through with arbitration, though thus far he's talking tough.

Easy answer to that. He just doesn't show up. USADA doesn't have compulsory process.

 

[Velodude]

Easy answer to that. He just doesn't show up. USADA doesn't have compulsory process.

So are you saying subpoenas for documents, witness attendance and discovery issued under AAA rules (AAA site is down but I believe it is r.31) are not enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction?

 

[mountainrman]

USADA has said several times that they may call LA as a witness in Bruyneel's arbitration. Of course he would be asked under oath if he ever doped, and other questions related to the other riders' testimony. How is he going to avoid that? This is one reason why I doubt Bruyneel will actually go through with arbitration, though thus far he's talking tough.

Not a lawyer but I think

Whilst Tygart would like that. I think the jurisdiction arguments are unlikely to fly - which is why I think it was crazy for USADA to sanction Bruyneel in the first place, rather than pass the file on to Bruyneels home federation for determination. In short Bruyneels case has little or nothing to do with USADA, other than presenters of evidence against him.

CAS to whom Bruyneel appeals is based in Lausanne. Bruyneel is a european citizen, not US. So an attempt to subpeona Armstrong to Switzerland does not sound likely to succeed. Indeed Various USADA arguments such as SOL are irrelevant except in the US, indeed UCI did contest Tygarts US interpretations because they claim USADA lack of jurisdiction..

Tn the event they can get Bruyneel into US based arbitration (and why would he want to go there?) Then tf Armstrong is forced into a US court by arbitrators for ratification of the power of subpeona under the articles of arbitration rules, or refuses to comply with such a subpoena, I suspect Armstrong would claim privilege under the fifth , and in the light of a suspended not closed federal investigation into Armstrong the court would I would have thought the court would have to allow that silence. I am sure he would enjoy refusing to speak, then sending Travis the bill! ( from Hawaii, as I understand it at the moment!)

As regards a subpoena from the swiss, I suspect it will have as much power as the rulilng that UCI got over Landis! ie None at all.

In the final analysis, since Armstrong is not expecting to compete again, the cycling world has little power over him now. They do not have a gun or a badge, and the powers to force subpoena are limited to US based arbitration as far as I understand it.

That is the disadvantage of these organisations hiding in switzerland and monaco. It means their assets are protected against people seeking damages, which is part of why they are there, but the reverse is also true. They have little power over anyone else.

If Armstorng refuses to take further part in this kangaroo court, I suspect all they can do is ban
him. Again! Two life bans (to run consecutively) is unlikely to bother him now!

Time will tell. I may be wrong.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Not a lawyer but I think

Whilst Tygart would like that. I think the jurisdiction arguments are unlikely to fly - which is why I think it was crazy for USADA to sanction Bruyneel in the first place, rather than pass the file on to Bruyneels home federation for determination. In short Bruyneels case has little or nothing to do with USADA, other than presenters of evidence against him.

CAS to whom Bruyneel appeals is based in Lausanne. Bruyneel is a european citizen, not US. So an attempt to subpeona Armstrong to Switzerland does not sound likely to succeed. Indeed Various USADA arguments such as SOL are irrelevant except in the US, indeed UCI did contest Tygarts US interpretations because they claim USADA lack of jurisdiction..

Tn the event they can get Bruyneel into US based arbitration (and why would he want to go there?) Then tf Armstrong is forced into a US court by arbitrators for ratification of the power of subpeona under the articles of arbitration rules, or refuses to comply with such a subpoena, I suspect Armstrong would claim privilege under the fifth , and in the light of a suspended not closed federal investigation into Armstrong the court would I would have thought the court would have to allow that silence. I am sure he would enjoy refusing to speak, then sending Travis the bill! ( from Hawaii, as I understand it at the moment!)

As regards a subpoena from the swiss, I suspect it will have as much power as the rulilng that UCI got over Landis! ie None at all.

In the final analysis, since Armstrong is not expecting to compete again, the cycling world has little power over him now. They do not have a gun or a badge, and the powers to force subpoena are limited to US based arbitration as far as I understand it.

That is the disadvantage of these organisations hiding in switzerland and monaco. It means their assets are protected against people seeking damages, which is part of why they are there, but the reverse is also true. They have little power over anyone else.

If Armstorng refuses to take further part in this kangaroo court, I suspect all they can do is ban him. Again!

Time will tell. I may be wrong.

Justify this characterization or STFU.

 

[MarkvW]

So are you saying subpoenas for documents, witness attendance and discovery issued under AAA rules (AAA site is down but I believe it is r.31) are not enforceable in a court of competent jurisdiction?

No. You are saying that. And you're leading yourself in the wrong direction. The AAA rules are not self-executing. Your inquiry should begin with the "competent jurisdiction" that you are talking about. You need to find a rule or statute that authorizes compulsory process in these particular USADA--Johan arbitration proceedings.

If you'd think about the idea for a moment, you'd realize how silly the idea is. Take the Lance Armstrong--USADA case. If Tygart really had compulsory process available to him, he would have deposed Lance under oath on every last little detail of Lance's Big Conspiracy.

Good luck finding a statute or court rule that makes compulsory process available to USADA...

 

[mountainrman]

Justify this characterization or STFU.

We are talking about Bruyneel.

Real courts or abritration panels, don't compromise fair hearings by putting the entire prosecution case in the public domain prior to hearing which is what they have done to Bruyneel here. They should have waited for all the cases to complete first.

As far as I am aware - the proceedings of a doping violation cases are supposed to be confidentia under UCI rules, except and until and as regards the judgement. Not that the cycling world ever behaves "properly" - take the scandalous release of whereabouts information on Rasmussen, for trial by media then in clear contravention of UCI rules - yet another kangaroo court hearing.

Were it a criminal case (and that may arise for Bruyneel shortly) he would certainly have grounds under European constitution to argue that fair hearing had been compromised by pre trial publicity and that will be because this Kangaroo court published that prosecution case , pretending it was an objective judgement for trial by public and media.

Real judgements unlike Kangaroo judgements also, criticise evidence. Take the stuff about Hincapie checking Armstrongs apartments, the word drug was never used Armstrong to Bruyneel or Bruyneel to Hincapie, yet that was used as "evidence" in the case, when Hincapie lived near, and an equally reasonable interpretation was had Armstrong emptied the bins, and took old food out of the fridge which would have stunk to high heaven.nmj How did that find its way into any rational judgement? Whatever Hincapie "thought it meant" is not evidence! We have all heard about riders who claimed Armstrongs involvement in doping. How many riders were interviewed who said they saw nothing at all? ( A number have appeared since that document!) How many were on the team, so was it really a team wide thing? Tygart nowhere criticised the evidence in any impartial way.

I am no fan of Armstrong or Bruyneel, but he like everyone else deserves a fair hearing.

BTW - since you claim legal knowledge in the US, was the presentation of Subpoena correct above? What is the jurisdiction of the arbitration hearing for CAS /Bruyneel, and what power does it have to subpoena armstrong?

 

[Velodude]

No. You are saying that. And you're leading yourself in the wrong direction. The AAA rules are not self-executing. Your inquiry should begin with the "competent jurisdiction" that you are talking about. You need to find a rule or statute that authorizes compulsory process in these particular USADA--Johan arbitration proceedings.

If you'd think about the idea for a moment, you'd realize how silly the idea is. Take the Lance Armstrong--USADA case. If Tygart really had compulsory process available to him, he would have deposed Lance under oath on every last little detail of Lance's Big Conspiracy.

Good luck finding a statute or court rule that makes compulsory process available to USADA...

USADA v Bruyneel tribunal procedures are subject to AAA rules. That is the forum where USADA has the capacity to enforce an appearance by Armstrong.

If USADA requires Armstrong to appear as a witness in that AAA Hearing application is made by USADA to the Tribunal for a subpoena to be served on your hero p).

If he does not appear Armstrong will have to answer to a court of competent jurisdiction that is specified in the laid down procedures for that AAA hearing.

It is in the AAA rules and was discussed ad nauseum relating to USADA v Floyd Landis.

"Sandy" may have had an adverse affect on the AAA site's internet capabilities. But when restored I suggest you study the AAA rules.

 

[jam pants]

We are talking about Bruyneel.

Real courts or abritration panels, don't compromise fair hearings by putting the entire prosecution case in the public domain prior to hearing which is what they have done to Bruyneel here. They should have waited for all the cases to complete first.

As far as I am aware - the proceedings of a doping violation cases are supposed to be confidentia under UCI rules, except and until and as regards the judgement. Not that the cycling world ever behaves "properly" - take the scandalous release of whereabouts information on Rasmussen, for trial by media then in clear contravention of UCI rules - yet another kangaroo court hearing.

Were it a criminal case (and that may arise for Bruyneel shortly) he would certainly have grounds under European constitution to argue that fair hearing had been compromised by pre trial publicity and that will be because this Kangaroo court published that prosecution case , pretending it was an objective judgement for trial by public and media.

Real judgements unlike Kangaroo judgements also, criticise evidence. Take the stuff about Hincapie checking Armstrongs apartments, the word drug was never used Armstrong to Bruyneel or Bruyneel to Hincapie, yet that was used as "evidence" in the case, when Hincapie lived near, and an equally reasonable interpretation was had Armstrong emptied the bins, and took old food out of the fridge which would have stunk to high heaven.nmj How did that find its way into any rational judgement? Whatever Hincapie "thought it meant" is not evidence!

I am no fan of Armstrong or Bruyneel, but he like everyone else deserves a fair hearing.

BTW - since you claim legal knowledge in the US, was the presentation of Subpoena correct above? What is the jurisdiction of the arbitration hearing for CAS /Bruyneel, and what power does it have to subpoena armstrong?

How does this material play in front of an audience? Do you workshop it here, and then take it to open mic night? Or are the forums your zenith?

 

[mountainrman]

USADA v Bruyneel tribunal procedures are subject to AAA rules. That is the forum where USADA has the capacity to enforce an appearance by Armstrong.

If USADA requires Armstrong to appear as a witness in that AAA Hearing application is made by USADA to the Tribunal for a subpoena to be served on your hero p).

If he does not appear Armstrong will have to answer to a court of competent jurisdiction that is specified in the laid down procedures for that AAA hearing.

It is in the AAA rules and was discussed ad nauseum relating to USADA v Floyd Landis.

"Sandy" may have had an adverse affect on the AAA site's internet capabilities. But when restored I suggest you study the AAA rules.

Johans right of appeal is to CAS who are based in Lausanne.

But even if USADA attempt to convene it in the US (and If I were Bruyneel, I would contest that - he is not even a US citizen, so has no contract directly or indirectly with USADA or US cycling) - I have stated in as far as I am aware how the subpoena powers derive from arbitration if US based and commented that I believe Armstrong would simply take the fifth, if the court upheld the right of arbitration subpoena, and I believe the court would uphold his right to do that.

There are real problems of jurisdiction that may mean Travis will not get his way.

 

[MarkvW]

USADA v Bruyneel tribunal procedures are subject to AAA rules. That is the forum where USADA has the capacity to enforce an appearance by Armstrong.

If USADA requires Armstrong to appear as a witness in that AAA Hearing application is made by USADA to the Tribunal for a subpoena to be served on your hero p).

If he does not appear Armstrong will have to answer to a court of competent jurisdiction that is specified in the laid down procedures for that AAA hearing.

It is in the AAA rules and was discussed ad nauseum relating to USADA v Floyd Landis.

"Sandy" may have had an adverse affect on the AAA site's internet capabilities. But when restored I suggest you study the AAA rules.

Look at it this way. You and I play marbles. I've played with you before, so I insist on some ground rules: If you insult me, I win. I don't trust you, so we execute the agreement in writing and subject ourselves to binding arbitration under the AAA rules. We play and you insult me. Nevertheless, you insist that you won. I subpoena you, and the whole rest of our neighborhood to the AAA hearing. Nobody shows up, because they think the immature urinating contest is juvenile. Can I then march off to Court and get an order compelling everybody to appear at my arbitration hearing? If nobody shows, will the judge issue arrest warrants?

 

[mountainrman]

How does this material play in front of an audience? Do you workshop it here, and then take it to open mic night? Or are the forums your zenith?

I was asked a question by Chewbacca and answered it. Obviously.

 

[MarkvW]

We are talking about Bruyneel.

Real courts or abritration panels, don't compromise fair hearings by putting the entire prosecution case in the public domain prior to hearing which is what they have done to Bruyneel here. They should have waited for all the cases to complete first.

As far as I am aware - the proceedings of a doping violation cases are supposed to be confidentia under UCI rules, except and until and as regards the judgement. Not that the cycling world ever behaves "properly" - take the scandalous release of whereabouts information on Rasmussen, for trial by media then in clear contravention of UCI rules - yet another kangaroo court hearing.

Were it a criminal case (and that may arise for Bruyneel shortly) he would certainly have grounds under European constitution to argue that fair hearing had been compromised by pre trial publicity and that will be because this Kangaroo court published that prosecution case , pretending it was an objective judgement for trial by public and media.

Real judgements unlike Kangaroo judgements also, criticise evidence. Take the stuff about Hincapie checking Armstrongs apartments, the word drug was never used Armstrong to Bruyneel or Bruyneel to Hincapie, yet that was used as "evidence" in the case, when Hincapie lived near, and an equally reasonable interpretation was had Armstrong emptied the bins, and took old food out of the fridge which would have stunk to high heaven.nmj How did that find its way into any rational judgement? Whatever Hincapie "thought it meant" is not evidence! We have all heard about riders who claimed Armstrongs involvement in doping. How many riders were interviewed who said they saw nothing at all? ( A number have appeared since that document!) How many were on the team, so was it really a team wide thing? Tygart nowhere criticised the evidence in any impartial way.

I am no fan of Armstrong or Bruyneel, but he like everyone else deserves a fair hearing.

BTW - since you claim legal knowledge in the US, was the presentation of Subpoena correct above? What is the jurisdiction of the arbitration hearing for CAS /Bruyneel, and what power does it have to subpoena armstrong?

Your argument would be compelling if the case were decided by jurors. But this case is to be decided by professional arbitrators. No tribunal in the world would find prejudicial unfairness in that. That argument is nothing more than empty words out of Herman's mouth.

 

[mountainrman]

Look at it this way. You and I play marbles. I've played with you before, so I insist on some ground rules: If you insult me, I win. I don't trust you, so we execute the agreement in writing and subject ourselves to binding arbitration under the AAA rules. We play and you insult me. Nevertheless, you insist that you won. I subpoena you, and the whole rest of our neighborhood to the AAA hearing. Nobody shows up, because they think the immature urinating contest is juvenile. Can I then march off to Court and get an order compelling everybody to appear at my arbitration hearing? If nobody shows, will the judge issue arrest warrants?

With respect, study the law.
It is not a game of marbles.

USADA wan't to get Armstrong to make a statement under penalty of perjury.

I doubt if they can.
Even the feds would struggle with that.

The only way they can do it is to get arbitration in the uS, so they can play under US rules (first problem, Bruyneel probably does not want to play in the US, and I do not think they can force him there)

Then then try to use the US rules on power of subpoena afforded by article of arbitration rules to get Lance to come and testify, which can be enforced by court.

Even if they manage both of those.(not a certainty)

I think Lance can take the fifth, and I doubt that anyone can stop him, considering the Federal investigation out to get him, so he can claim privilege to avoid testifying.

Otherwise the only other powers cycling has over Lance is the right to ban him. Again.
Er....yes. I am sure that will work right now!

 

[MarkvW]

With respect, study the law.
It is not a game of marbles.

USADA wan't to get Armstrong to make a statement under penalty of perjury.

I doubt if they can.
Even the feds would struggle with that.

The only way they can do it is to get arbitration in the uS, so they can play under US rules (first problem, Bruyneel probably does not want to play in the US, and I do not think they can force him there)

Then then try to use the US rules on power of subpoena afforded by article of arbitration rules to get Lance to come and testify, which can be enforced by court.

Even if they manage both of those.(not a certainty)

I think Lance can take the fifth, and I doubt that anyone can stop him, considering the Federal investigation out to get him, so he can claim privilege to avoid testifying.

Otherwise the only other powers cycling has over Lance is the right to ban him. Again.
Er....yes. I am sure that will work right now!

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[mountainrman]

That doesn't make any sense.

Then start by reading up on powers of subpoena afforded to US based arbitration., and the ability to enforce those through courts.

But quite why a Belgian citizen appealing to a Swiss Court of Arbitration would want to go to the US is beyond me. Tygart may hope he will

That is the mess that is cycling jurisdiction at present. It needs cleaning up...

 

[eyemgh]

You are once again, only on a different thread, confusing apples and oranges. This is not a US legal matter. This is a sporting matter. Yes, issues that arise may result in spinoff legal matters. SCA seeking money back is one instance. This is not however US vs. LA. It is a matter of the USADA sanctioning LA for a well documented doping violation. Please, quit attempting to muddy the water. Your arguments are gaining NO traction here because everyone is savvy enough to see them as purely obfuscation.

 

[peterst6906]

USADA wan't to get Armstrong to make a statement under penalty of perjury

Rubbish!

USADA want to fulfil their mandate in line with what they have been tasked to do.

They've done it.

There is nothing in their mandate about catching perjurers.

If I'm wrong on that last sentence, please direct me to the location of the relevant facts so I can update my own knowledge and apologise.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Velodude]

Johans right of appeal is to CAS who are based in Lausanne.

But even if USADA attempt to convene it in the US (and If I were Bruyneel, I would contest that - he is not even a US citizen, so has no contract directly or indirectly with USADA or US cycling) - I have stated in as far as I am aware how the subpoena powers derive from arbitration if US based and commented that I believe Armstrong would simply take the fifth, if the court upheld the right of arbitration subpoena, and I believe the court would uphold his right to do that.

There are real problems of jurisdiction that may mean Travis will not get his way.

I am way, way behind. Is Johan appealing?

 

[Hugh Januss]

This guy is just flip flopping back and forth between two entirely different cases. USADA v. Bruyneel is a sporting rules violation case, SCA v. Lance Armstrong will likely be a civil court case, no? Maybe criminal by the time they get to the perjury question, but still, different rules, different procedures, and different venues. To try to tie them together is just stupid.

 

[cathulu]

Mountainrman is wrapped-up in his own world of facts and minutiae that he is all tied up in knots and is unintelligible. He is parroting Empfield drivel as I have said before.

Mountainrman, time to move along and pick another battle, one that can be made sense of.