USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[QuickStepper]

If you've not seen the worst piece of so-called "journalism" I have ever seen, it's worth a peek. This is what the general American public is seeing on the newstands this week thanks to Newsweek and Buzz Bissinger.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...singer-still-believes-in-lance-armstrong.html

Thank you for pointing out what I had noted earlier. I suppose though with your added statement that it's "the worst piece of so-called 'journalism'" that you will not draw the ire of the rest of the Clinic members like I did when I posted the same link in response to a request for examples of "positive" spin by the LA side.

 

[sashimono]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/cultur...rong-demonstrates-the-risks-of-having-heroes/


We are right to have heroes, because it is right to admire and even revere those who can do things of which we ourselves are incapable. But it is absurd to demand that outside the particular sphere in which they excel, they should be paragons of spotless virtue. And we should accept, reluctantly, that even in their sport. some will behave stupidly, badly, dishonestly.

I really hope the USADA doesn't dig anything up on Jesse Owens -- that would be really depressing.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thank you for pointing out what I had noted earlier. I suppose though with your added statement that it's "the worst piece of so-called 'journalism'" that you will not draw the ire of the rest of the Clinic members like I did when I posted the same link in response to a request for examples of "positive" spin by the LA side.

I thought that was strange. I guess You must have made some enemy’s here? Someone jumped all in and started attacking you. Weird but sometimes no matter how hard you try,,,,,you can’t gain entry into the clubhouse. Oh well Qstepper better luck next time.

 

[Oldman]

Guilty as charged - no escaping it with me and the Newsweek article. I read it and was incensed so threw down multiple times in the comment section. I usually try to avoid getting drawn into petty arguments in the comment section - but maybe I shouldn't. I mean - if journalists are going to flood the media with uneducated, factless, pro-Lance propaganda, maybe we are doing everyone a service by refuting these articles respectfully with facts - and then referencing those facts. I'm a newb and all - but maybe the Clinic can make an impact through educating the public on this stuff - and not just one another. We have the evidence - why not use it?

This is where Phase II will need to include the disclosure of evidence and probably not just a dump of "testimony" to the media. Kimmage noted correctly that the whole USPS program didn't occur in a vacumn and had support of the UCI. I think that it the next path for USADA's and, perhaps Interpol's collected evidence. It will be harder for Lance's hacks to spin the facts presented in a legitmate tribunal as opposed to our promotion of "facts".

 

[Arnout]

2 Armstrong's made the news recently.

1 went to the moon and back, stayed out of the limelight and lived a humble life.

The other cheated his to 7TdF wins and used it to enrich himself and bully those who talked honestly about how he won.

I think 1 should be renamed Gunderson.

And, when people wrongly accused him of never been to the moon, he just shrugged. Compare that to the other, when he is rightly accused of doping, lying, and all that. It's a shame they have the same name, Neil doesn't deserve to be associated with Lance.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Wasn't it stated in the USADA thread or evidence thread somewhere that after 5 business days the USADA information was to be publicly disclosed?

 

[TheEnoculator]

If you've not seen the worst piece of so-called "journalism" I have ever seen, it's worth a peek. This is what the general American public is seeing on the newstands this week thanks to Newsweek and Buzz Bissinger.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...singer-still-believes-in-lance-armstrong.html

There are "journalism" pieces that literally make me feel nauseated. This is one of them. The other one is the Sally "Lance-is-my-friend" Jenkins article in Washington Post.

 

[D-Queued]

Nope what you done was Troll according to the definition used here. Sorry I had to be the one to point it out to you.


Anyhow nice play on the results, even with your 2 votes and the other guys 5 votes it is still leaning in another direction. Why is that? All the bots out there? Is that the explanation? Nope in my opinion it is because only small portions of the people who either read or get linked into the article are not cycling fans. They are just normal folks who follow LA and are not fans of cycling. They may say they like cycling but truth be told they only like LA and his side of cycling.

Cycling fans that were around trying to find tickers for the TDF and trying to read sites like Daily Peloton and Cycling News pre LA are the minority.

Glenn,

You are too smart to believe that.

Not sure if you are trolling, but why would you goad me and others to try and game that poll to restore the balance?

Dave.

 

[ultimobici]

Wasn't it stated in the USADA thread or evidence thread somewhere that after 5 business days the USADA information was to be publicly disclosed?

Don't think it's publicly, I think it's that they have to advise the relevant parties of how they've arrived at their decision. So that's Armstrong, UCI & USAC.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Don't think it's publicly, I think it's that they have to advise the relevant parties of how they've arrived at their decision. So that's Armstrong, UCI & USAC.

Thnx. Will do a little digging.

 

[python]

I thought that was strange. I guess You must have made some enemy’s here? Someone jumped all in and started attacking you. Weird but sometimes no matter how hard you try,,,,,you can’t gain entry into the clubhouse. Oh well Qstepper better luck next time.

can someone please help me, if it takes the mods then go ahead and mod me or anything it takes, what on earth this post has got to do with the thread title - Armstrong and USADA? Thanks in advance.

 

[python]

Glenn,


Not sure if you are trolling, but why would you goad me and others to try and game that poll to restore the balance?

Dave.

See my post above. And thanks for recognizing flaming. Better late than never.

 

[QuickStepper]

Wasn't it stated in the USADA thread or evidence thread somewhere that after 5 business days the USADA information was to be publicly disclosed?

USADA has 5 days to "Publicly Report" the disposition of the case from the date the arbitration hearing is waived by the athlete. (See Protocols, Rule 16; but cf., WADA Rule 14.2.2 which provides for a 21 day reporting period). In any event, the USADA has decided to go with a shorter and more stringent time frame for itself to report disposition than that allowed by the Code.

LA waived the hearing last Thursday, and USADA publicly reported the disposition on Friday with a letter published on the USADA website. The dispo letter was also sent on Friday to the UCI, WADA, IOC, etc.

I've searched the Protocols and the WADA Code again, and I cannot find any specific date when USADA has to provide a detailed, "reasoned decision" to WADA, UCI, IOC, and the NGB. I do find rules that specify when the arbitrators, when there is a hearing held, must communicate such a "reasoned decision", but I find nothing that requires USADA to make a public report or disclosure or to write any detailed report to WADA. I am somewhat pressed for time today, so I might be overlooking something, but I could not find any other rule requiring a statement of the evidence that USADA is required to submit.

It could be that when a hearing is waived, there is no such requirement other than that USADA has to transmit the entire case file to WADA, and that must occur within 20 days (see WADA Code 14.2.2). But again, I could be wrong.

And indeed one possible explanation why USADA might not have to prepare any "reasoned decision" in the case of an athlete waiving a hearing is that the athlete has no right to appeal from the sanction before CAS when he waives the right to a hearing before USADA. The only ground for appeal in that circumstance is when the athlete appeals claiming he had no notice of the proceedings and that was the basis for the failure to request a hearing. Clearly that's not the case with LA, because he had notice of the hearing and chose to waive it. Thus, he has no right to appeal (see Protocol 11(e), and only UCI, USAC, and WADA have the right to appeal (See WADA Code 13.2.3). The time for filing an appeal is 21 days from the date WADA receives the complete case file from USADA. It also appears that the only obligation of USADA, under the WADA Code, is to transmit the entire case file, but it doesn't have to prepare anything other than the disposition letter. The required contents of the dispo letter are also set forth in the WADA Code, but that letter is not required to contain a detailed narrative of the evidence in support of the charges.

 

[D-Queued]

USADA has 5 days to "Publicly Report" the disposition of the case from the date the arbitration hearing is waived by the athlete. (See Protocols, Rule 16; but cf., WADA Rule 14.2.2 which provides for a 21 day reporting period). In any event, the USADA has decided to go with a shorter and more stringent time frame for itself to report disposition than that allowed by the Code.

LA waived the hearing last Thursday, and USADA publicly reported the disposition on Friday with a letter published on the USADA website. The dispo letter was also sent on Friday to the UCI, WADA, IOC, etc.

I've searched the Protocols and the WADA Code again, and I cannot find any specific date when USADA has to provide a detailed, "reasoned decision" to WADA, UCI, IOC, and the NGB. I do find rules that specify when the arbitrators, when there is a hearing held, must communicate such a "reasoned decision", but I find nothing that requires USADA to make a public report or disclosure or to write any detailed report to WADA. I am somewhat pressed for time today, so I might be overlooking something, but I could not find any other rule requiring a statement of the evidence that USADA is required to submit.

It could be that when a hearing is waived, there is no such requirement other than that USADA has to transmit the entire case file to WADA, and that must occur within 20 days (see WADA Code 14.2.2). But again, I could be wrong.

LA has no right to appeal from the sanction before CAS because he had notice of the hearing and chose to waive it (see Protocol 11(e). UCI does though (WADA Code 13.2.3). The time for filing an appeal is 21 days from the date WADA receives the complete case file from USADA.

Thanks QuickStepper, this is very helpful.

And, took some effort to pull together.

Dave.

 

[python]

......The time for filing an appeal is 21 days from the date WADA receives the complete case file from USADA.

The 21 days is certainly a hard reference but where did you read that usada is obligated to submit to the uci a complete case file - in the case like this ?

Or was this another attempt at spinning?

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I've lost track of all the threads, so not sure if it belongs here. When do Bruyneel, and his cohort of accused face their arbitration? Have they even reached the decision point regarding arbitration yet? Curious about their timeline

 

[laughingcavalier]

Just to say thanks for the debate and info all. I gave up being an ardent read-everything bike fan about the time Lance came on the scene and I've always admired his wins and wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I was really reluctant to make myself look at the evidence, but eventually felt I had to when he dropped out of the USADA process. I was really shocked, not just by the weight of evidence against him but more by the way he seems to have enforced omerta & been pivotal in promoting the drugs culture within the sport.

 

[python]

I've lost track of all the threads, so not sure if it belongs here. When do Bruyneel, and his cohort of accused face their arbitration? Have they even reached the decision point regarding arbitration yet? Curious about their timeline

not claiming a 100% accuracy but the quick and dirty of the bruyneel's publicly known circumstances is this:
- the date for bruyneel's hearing has not been officially set up yet. the various pieces of news referred to uncertainty of the hearing as of now. The opinions reported ranged from bru hoping the hearing wont take place to him not yet withdrawing from the hearing officially. various experts believe he will withdraw like his patron.
-the time line of the bruyneel and the other defendants hearing is not known. it will be influenced by the legal maneuvering btwn usada and uci wrt to appealing to cas. my estimate - we should hear that bru has withdrawn within a week of the uci announcing not to challenge usada in cas. alternatively, if he withdraws earlier, say in the next 1-2 weeks, it would indicate the uci will not appeal usada verdict on the wonderboy.

just my thoughts...

 

[QuickStepper]

The 21 days is certainly a hard reference but where did you read that usada is obligated to submit to the uci a complete case file - in the case like this ?

Or was this another attempt at spinning?

Yeah, it's another attempt at "spinning." In fact, I'm getting dizzy from all the spinning.


I noted that I was rushed for time. I admit I was wrong about the 21-day hard cutoff for the appeal as to UCI. That 21 day rule applies to an appeal filed by WADA, but not UCI (See Article 13 of the WADA Code, Section 13.2.3:

"The filing deadline for an appeal or intervention filed by WADA shall be the later of:

(a) Twenty-one (21) days after the last day on which any other party in the case could have appealed, or

(b) Twenty-one (21) days after WADA’s receipt of the complete file relating to the decision

Again, I'm pressed for time today, so I'll have to research later whether there is similar hard time deadline for an appeal by UCI from the USADA sanction. I seem to recall there being one, but I just can't locate it right now. I will look later and if I find anything I will post it.

 

[python]

Yeah, it's another attempt at "spinning." In fact, I'm getting dizzy from all the spinning.


I noted that I was rushed for time. I admit I was wrong about the 21-day hard cutoff for the appeal as to UCI. That 21 day rule applies to an appeal filed by WADA, but not UCI (See Article 13 of the WADA Code, Section 13.2.3:



Again, I'm pressed for time today, so I'll have to research later whether there is similar hard time deadline for an appeal by UCI from the USADA sanction. I seem to recall there being one, but I just can't locate it right now. I will look later and if I find anything I will post it.

glad you admit to your mistakes.

and i have a suggestion - coming from a professional like you, a pro engage in a busy lifestyle - don't rush posting the under-researched stuff.

i can link to you claiming being too expensive for armstrong's lawyers. i can also link to you claiming them being (let's leave this blank). not important...

the morale of my post is -- take example from chuba's humble style. he never claimed being anything more than a law student and he has not made your type of...let's leave at calling it inconsistencies.

don't mean to be condescending. i do appreciate your inputs even if i disagree.

you are the type of poster we should welcome.

 

[QuickStepper]

not claiming a 100% accuracy but the quick and dirty of the bruyneel's publicly known circumstances is this:
- the date for bruyneel's hearing has not been officially set up yet. the various pieces of news referred to uncertainty of the hearing as of now. The opinions reported ranged from bru hoping the hearing wont take place to him not yet withdrawing from the hearing officially. various experts believe he will withdraw like his patron.
-the time line of the bruyneel and the other defendants hearing is not known. it will be influenced by the legal maneuvering btwn usada and uci wrt to appealing to cas. my estimate - we should hear that bru has withdrawn within a week of the uci announcing not to challenge usada in cas. alternatively, if he withdraws earlier, say in the next 1-2 weeks, it would indicate the uci will not appeal usada verdict on the wonderboy.

just my thoughts...

If Bruyneel stays in arbitration, the hearing is required to commence no later than within three months from the date the arbitrators are appointed. (Rule 19, App. A to USADA Protocols) The date when the arbitrators are appointed can be somewhat convoluted given that it's a series of list submissions and striking of names, but in general, the process for selecting the arbitrators and the time frames involved are contained in Rule 11 of the AAA Commercial Rules (Appendix D to the Protocols). I haven't really calculated the maximum time that could occur for arbitrator selection, but at first glance it appears to be 17 days total from the original submission of the list of names of arbitrators to the parties, which is required to be submitted at the same time as the charging letter to the athlete (at least this is how I read Rule 11). The parties can vary this procedure by agreement, which is always the case with any arbitrations.


Unless the parties agree otherwise, the arbitration hearing and any briefing must be completed within the same three month period after the arbitrator is appointed. (Rule 19).

Finally, Rule 19 also has a provision for any party to move for an expedited hearing (to obtain an earlier resolution). I don't know why either Bruyneel or USADA would do so, but it's permitted under the Rules if the moving party shows "good cause."

None of this any longer applies to USADA vs. Armstrong , but it would apply to Bruyneel if he goes forward with arbitration. Based on the foregoing, the time for everyone to be selecting arbitrators in Bruyneel's arbitration (and the others who also decided to arbitrate) should be fast approaching.

 

[Merckx index]

Any hearing is supposed to take place within three months of choosing the arbitrators, but that step hasn’t been taken yet, and of course may never be. At the time the charging letter went out in the middle of June, it was estimated the hearing would occur in late October or early November. That was before all the delays by LA, the extension granted to JB, Del Moral changing his mind, and so on. And now the thinking seems to be JB won't go through with it.

But if Bruyneel and/or either of the other two does go through with this, the arbitrator selection process should take place fairly soon, with the hearing probably taking place early next year. I assume a lot of the evidence can't come out before any scheduled hearings, so USADA would want the process to move along. It would be more complicated if there were more than one opting for a hearing. I guess USADA would want one hearing, with one set of arbs, for everyone, but I don't know if the rules would allow separate hearings if the defendants so chose? Given the conspiracy charges, I suppose not.

If UCI announces it won't appeal, will they repeat the LA excuse that they are tired and know that the hearing is rigged against them? How exactly will they rationalize not appealing, after all their complaining that they should have jurisdiction? Are they going to say they're satisfied with USADA's evidence, after strongly implying they doubted it?

Edit: I see QS has addressed this issue. I didn't know about any limits on the time to pick arbs. I also didn't know that a list of arbs went out with the charging letter. I don't understand, though, how there could be a 17 day limit from the charging letter, because there is a three week (maximum) period before the case is submitted to the review board, to determine if they can go ahead with a hearing. They might look over the arb list during that period, but couldn't come to any conclusions until the review board ruled.

 

[python]

If Bruyneel stays in arbitration, the hearing is required to commence no later than within three months from the date the arbitrators are appointed. (Rule 19, App. A to USADA Protocols) The date when the arbitrators are appointed can be somewhat convoluted given that it's a series of list submissions and striking of names, but in general, the process for selecting the arbitrators and the time frames involved are contained in Rule 11 of the AAA Commercial Rules (Appendix D to the Protocols). I haven't really calculated the maximum time that could occur for arbitrator selection, but at first glance it appears to be 17 days total from the original submission of the list of names of arbitrators to the parties, which is required to be submitted at the same time as the charging letter to the athlete (at least this is how I read Rule 11). The parties can vary this procedure by agreement, which is always the case with any arbitrations.


Unless the parties agree otherwise, the arbitration hearing and any briefing must be completed within the same three month period after the arbitrator is appointed. (Rule 19).

Finally, Rule 19 also has a provision for any party to move for an expedited hearing (to obtain an earlier resolution). I don't know why either Bruyneel or USADA would do so, but it's permitted under the Rules if the moving party shows "good cause."

you will have to excuse me, but none of the above - though a less voluminous new style is welcome - has addressed the question asked. which was:

When do Bruyneel, and his cohort of accused face their arbitration? Have they even reached the decision point regarding arbitration yet? Curious about their timeline

iow, it was an utterly irrelevant post because it addressed what may or may not happen AFTER the hearing was arranged - or more precisely - the arbitration panel is agreed up on.

we aren't even close to that point.

 

[thehog]

Just to say thanks for the debate and info all. I gave up being an ardent read-everything bike fan about the time Lance came on the scene and I've always admired his wins and wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I was really reluctant to make myself look at the evidence, but eventually felt I had to when he dropped out of the USADA process. I was really shocked, not just by the weight of evidence against him but more by the way he seems to have enforced omerta & been pivotal in promoting the drugs culture within the sport.

Its a worthy process. Welcome. I'm glad you took the time to read the story behind the story.

 

[QuickStepper]

you will have to excuse me, but none of the above - though a less voluminous new style is welcome - has addressed the question asked. which was:
iow, it was an utterly irrelevant post because it addressed what may or may not happen AFTER the hearing was arranged - or more precisely - the arbitration panel is agreed up on.

we aren't even close to that point.

Try reading the first full paragraph of my post again and you will see that it provides, at this point, the only possible answer to your question. Merckx Index also responded and answered essentially the same, which is that the hearing has to take place within 3 months of the date the arbitrators are selected. My post simply contained the citations to the rules, and also pointed out that there is no fixed date for the selection of the arbitrators, other than a maxiumum period when it has to occur by, and thus at this time, the question literally can't be answered with an actual calendar date at this point, and clearly, the date for selecting the arbitrators would have come and gone as Merckx Index also notes, since the list of names of arbitrators was delivered along with the charging letter back in June, and we are obvioiusly well beyond the deadline now for selection of arbitrators provided for in the Rules. You may deem the answer irrelevant, but I think that is because you need to consider that the answer to your question requires answering several other preliminary questions first, with each phase of the process dependent on another which precedes it.

I guess I also went beyond your question a bit (thinking that the information would be useful), because not only did I give you the timeframe for when Bruyneel would have to face their accusers (i.e., when the hearing had to commence by), but I also noted the rule about when the hearing has to be concluded as well (unless the parties otherwise agree to extend the time).

The answer to your question is there. No no need to be snide or hostile about it. If you don't like my answers, look it up yourself. It's all in the USADA Protocols and the WADA Code, and anyone can read them online.

If you disagree with my response, so be it. If you think the rule is different, I'm always open to learning how or why my answer is wrong, so let me know what you find.

USADA Protocols (in PDF)

WADA Code of 2009 (also in PDF)