USADA-Armstrong Phase II

[Microchip]

On LA's part.

In retrospect: The deal with P&H -- they claim jurisdiction and LA doesn't turn on them -- was clearly a bad idea because (a) it was bound to fail, (b) LA now looses all his 7 tdfs, where he could have kept 5 and (c) P&H will get their as§es exposed anyway.

Wow!!!! Unbelievable that he still wanted to keep 7!!!!

 

[D-Queued]

Wow!!!! Unbelievable that he still wanted to keep 7!!!!

You mean aside from the $12 million reasons?

Dave.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Guys, how you like my new signature? It´s of course thread related...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

I think there will be more an more people like you coming to this conclusion. Lance was a great story to believe in at one point to may of the people here including me. I will admit that it has been years since that point for me, but sooner or later, avoiding the reality of what happened is impossible for anyone willing to look at the evidence.

Welcome!

 

[QuickStepper]

Any hearing is supposed to take place within three months of choosing the arbitrators. . .

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.

Re: The Edit--- My prior post is based on Rule 11(d). For a complete understanding I have to quote it:

d. If the proceeding is to be heard by a panel of three (3) arbitrators, those arbitrators shall be appointed as follows:
i. Within five (5) days following receipt of the Arbitrator Pool list provided by the Administrator under R-11a or from receipt of notice of the request to have a three (3) arbitrator panel, whichever is later, USADA, or USADA and the International Federation, if a party, shall designate one (1) arbitrator from the Arbitrator Pool. The athlete or other person charged with an anti-doping rule violation shall have an additional five (5) days following receipt of the arbitrator choice from USADA, or from USADA and the International Federation, if a party, to designate one (1) arbitrator from the Arbitrator Pool.

ii. The two (2) arbitrators chosen by the parties shall choose the third arbitrator from among the remaining members of the Arbitrator Pool. The AAA shall furnish to the party-appointed arbitrators the Arbitrator Pool list. If the two (2) arbitrators chosen by the parties are unable, within seven (7) days following their selection, to choose the third arbitrator, then the party-appointed arbitrators shall so notify the AAA which shall notify the parties. Within five (5) days of receipt of notice from the AAA that the party-selected arbitrators are unable to reach or have not reached agreement, the parties shall then each strike up to one third of the Arbitrator Pool and rank the remaining members in order of preference. From among the persons who have not been stricken by the parties, and in accordance with the designated order of mutual preference, the AAA shall invite the acceptance of one (1) arbitrator to serve. The third arbitrator shall serve as Chair of the Arbitration
Panel.

Under Rule R-11a, the list of arbitrators is provided at the time the case is initiated by USADA. That rule provides: "Immediately after the initiation of a proceeding by USADA (as set forth in R-4), the AAA shall send simultaneously to each party to the dispute an identical list of all
names of persons in the Arbitrator Pool."

As I said, I quickly skimmed Rule R-11d and calculated the times set forth in that paragraph, but obviously the time can be enlarged and would likely be longer than the 17 days I calculated (simply by adding the two 5-day periods for each side, and then the 7 day period for the two selected arbitrators to pick the third arbitrator. It's also clear that if the two selected arbitrators can't reach a decision or the parties cannot agree on a third, that the "submit-strike" process can extend the time even further.

Hope this clears it up, but if not, or if you think I've got this wrong in some particular, let me know, but you might want to PM me so we don't bore the rest of the folks who are not interested in this aspect of the hearing process.

One other note: I don't think I can square up how the Review Board process extends the time either, but clearly it would. The AAA Rules are silent about the Review Board process. The Appendix D rules (the AAA Arbitration Rules) simply mention that the "initiation of the case" as defined in Rule R-4a is the delivery of the charging letter, and as Rule 11 provides, the delivery of the list of arbitrators which is supposed to set the other time frames in motion occurs when the case is initiated. Yes, it is odd and I don't know how to square that up. I think the point is pretty much academic though now, since as you note, we are already well beyond the time frames set forth in the rules, both with respect to the extensions granted to LA, the del Moral comings and goings, and the rest of the delays in this thing.

 

[Anonymous]

You mean aside from the $12 million reasons?

Dave.

This.

I'm sort of expecting the SCA shoe to drop about 1 nano second after the ASO officially strip LA of his titles.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

This.

I'm sort of expecting the SCA shoe to drop about 1 nano second after the ASO officially strip LA of his titles.

Where comes your optimism from? It will take a long battle and is about 50/50 i´d say...

 

[python]

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)

the bottom line is that your pontifications were totally irrelevant to the question asked by a poster i tried to address.

i could take your approach and pontificate about what would or would not happen on the moon in 13 days...doubt anyone cares.

if anyone does, i would address them AFTER they asked.

bottom line, whether the arbitration by the bruyneel and co will take place is a complete unknown at this point.

how the mechanics of that arbitration will function (should it take place at all) is a misdirection given the specific question posed and the thread's current thrust.

but i am not a mod, go ahead and try to impose your agenda. however, don't be surprised if not everyone goes along.

 

[QuickStepper]

the bottom line is that your pontifications were totally irrelevant to the question asked by a poster i tried to address.

i could take your approach and pontificate about what would or would not happen on the moon in 13 days...doubt anyone cares.

if anyone does, i would address them AFTER they asked.

bottom line, whether the arbitration by the bruyneel and co will take place is a complete unknown at this point.

how the mechanics of that arbitration will function (should it take place at all) is a misdirection given the specific question posed and the thread's current thrust.

but i am not a mod, go ahead and try to impose your agenda. however, don't be surprised if not everyone goes along.

Honestly, I have no idea what you are going on about.

The answer to the question "when will Bruyneel and the others face their accusers" is, literally, when a hearing takes place. When will that be? Read the rules. I tried to answer. You don't like the answer.

If you're looking for a simple time, date and place, as of now the answer is "no one knows for sure." I agree with you there. But you didn't say that in your post either. You were speculating about various dates, time frames and the like. The rules though are the source of the real answer. At least they give context to the question, and if events have overtaken the rules, or the parties have behaved differently than the rules provide, well, that happens sometimes in arbitration. But ultimately you have to come back to the rules, otherwise it's just chaos.

You can claim that I'm not responding or engaging in some sort of "misdirection" all you want, but why single out my response and allow Merckx's to go without comment when we both essentially said the same thing.

It's clear you're just trying to intimidate me, trying to provoke a response from the mods, and trying to run me off the board. I am frankly unmoved and unpersuaded by your argument that I've failed to properly respond. Your argument lacks any merit whatsoever.

 

[Anonymous]

Where comes your optimism from? It will take a long battle and is about 50/50 i´d say...

In the end they will not have a choice. If the world views him lifetime banned and stripped in his home country of every result since August of 1998 then the ASO will follow.

I think they are trying to work out exactly how to not have a TdF winner for those years...

 

[python]

Honestly, II am frankly unmoved and unpersuaded by your argument that I've failed to properly respond. Your argument lacks any merit whatsoever.

you seem to have a complex...i was explicit at welcoming your input. page up. i was explicit at what i objected to - your misdirection of the question asked by a poster i responded to.

i was very clear about your attempts at steering the thread into irrelevant minutia whist it should be obvious that people are not interested in the irrelevant detals of bruyneel and co arbitration given it has not even been confirmed.

you are upset that that you are not allowed to spin the topic.

be ready for more....

 

[QuickStepper]

you seem to have a complex...i was explicit at welcoming your input. page up. i was explicit at what i objected to - your misdirection of the question asked by a poster i responded to.

i was very clear about your attempts at steering the thread into irrelevant minutia whist it should be obvious that people are not interested in the irrelevant detals of bruyneel and co arbitration given it has not even been confirmed.

you are upset that that you are not allowed to spin the topic.

be ready for more....

Maybe we should have this discussion: What do you mean when you say "spin the topic?"

The way I see it, what you describe as the "minutae" of the arbitration process is what it is. We're not talking about playing a game of checkers here, but an arbitration that has rules. When a question can only be answered by reference to the rule, what's wrong with providing an answer that makes full reference to the rule? If you don't want to read it, then don't. And I'm sure lots of people won't bother to read it, because, like you, that aren't interested in the "minutae" and just want simple answers.

But several people have PM'd me and said they appreciate the details provided. You obviously do not. That's ok with me, but there's no reason for you to go on and on, claiming I'm "spinning" anything. Either you care about the process and the rules or you don't. I happen to care about the process, not just the bare-bones rules (which many here are trying to understand) but also the fundamental fairness issues that have been present throughout this case. If that's "spin" then everyone is doing that, because everyone has a point of view and they are here to express it. I'm not telling you what to post and what not to post, so why are you doing that with me?

 

[Microchip]

You mean aside from the $12 million reasons?

Dave.

This.

I'm sort of expecting the SCA shoe to drop about 1 nano second after the ASO officially strip LA of his titles.

Right, forgot about the money. And when might this second stripping take place?

 

[Microchip]

You mean aside from the $12 million reasons?

Dave.

This.

I'm sort of expecting the SCA shoe to drop about 1 nano second after the ASO officially strip LA of his titles.

Right, forgot about the money. And when might this second stripping take place?

 

[python]

yesterday you tried to steel and misdirect the thread by patronizing insults to a poster who asked simple questions about the hearsay's evidence value..

when being humbly lectured by a law student - chuba - you exploded into more indignities of a hurt poppy lawyer. chuba never made the claims you made - 'i am too expensive for armstrong's lawyers' (again, would you like me to provide the link to this self infatuation)... so please excuse us, if we check your self-obsessed attempts at steering the thread in the direction no one cares about - the irrelevant legal minutia.

 

[QuickStepper]

yesterday you tried to steel and misdirect the thread by patronizing insults to a poster who asked simple questions about the hearsay's evidence value..

when being humbly lectured by a law student - chuba - you exploded into more indignities of a hurt poppy lawyer. chuba never made the claims you made - 'i am too expensive for armstrong's lawyers' (again, would you like me to provide the link to this self infatuation)... so please excuse us, if we check your self-obsessed attempts at steering the thread in the direction no one cares about - the irrelevant legal minutia.

Last time. You are not "everyone". If you don't care to read my answer, then don't read it. But there are others here who wanted to discuss this, including Mercxk Index. We discussed it and exchanged our thoughts. I appreciate that in one post you welcomed me, and yet in the next claim that my posts are just "spin" or attempts to misdirect a thread. Now you are bringing up an exchange yesterday that the mods have already deleted? Why are we going there?

And you keep misinterpreting my comment about being too expensive for LA's attorneys. The context was the suggestion that I was some sort of legal "intern" working for LA's attorneys because I kept suggesting potential defenses or ways that subject matter jurisdiction might exist in the federal case, and as you will recall, there were many exchanges between me and Chewbacca on this. As to the "intern" suggestion, I noted that it was absurd, that I'm a 32 year litigator and my hourly rate far exceeds what LA's attorneys could afford to pay some young intern. If you understood it differently, hope this clears it up. But that's the context, so would you please not try to "spin" it into something that it was not? Is that fair?

Let me ask you this, which is related to the title and topic of this thread (USADA - Amrstrong Phase II"): Your response to the person who asked about the Bruyneel & Co. arbitration hearing suggested that you think Bruyneel is going to ultimately decide not to arbitrate. I'm not so sure I agree with that, and I'm curious why you think he would not go forward with the hearing process, not all of it, but at least the initial phases. I think that if, as you say, Bruyneel is taking his lead from Armstrong (and that very well may be so), that Bruyneel will still go forward at least with the Preliminary Hearing portion, so that he gets the list of witnesses and any witness statements, as well as an identification of the documentary evidence, if only because I'm not sure Armstrong would ever get that information, even if UCI were to appeal at the CAS (which would be likely going on in a parallel proceeding). And yes, I know that Mr. Tygart has said that the information will eventually be made public, and we've seen some indication of that in recent press statements he made in USA Today, but so far, nothing has been released. So this may be a way to get it sooner, rather than later.

Don't you think Bruyneel would, as a sort of proxy for LA, find it useful to at least get that information before making a decision not to continue forward with arbitration. I mean from his (and LA's perspective) any info they can get prior to actual testimony being given under oath is a free shot, isn't it?

 

[python]

Last time.

Don't you think Bruyneel would, as a sort of proxy for LA, find it useful to at least get that information before making a decision not to continue forward with arbitration. I mean from his (and LA's perspective) any info they can get prior to actual testimony being given under oath is a free shot, isn't it?

once again, i dont care atm, and it should be obvious that most posters at the moment don't care either about your projections about bruyneel.

i have expressed plenty of speculative thoughts about bruyneel/armstrong tactics - that's where we are on the same page - but it does not seem to belong to the thread's spirit and direction atm.

 

[joe_papp]

Aren't you forgetting the federal lawsuit when LA would admit? The possible SCA lawsuit?

LA is/was battling a two front war, he can't escape anymore so he'll just 'take the fifth'.

No, I think we agree. In the "liability" I suggest LA faces, I would include criminal and civil, everything from being tried in federal court on a charge or two of trafficking, to being sued for an amt. that exceeds what he earned fraudulently (allegedly) 3-4x. This is why he could never admit to doping w/o extensive assurance that he wouldn't face criminal liability and he wouldn't face civil liability beyond having to return his TdF trophies and other race winnings if they tried to collect.

Hence the epic battle in federal court to prevent the case from even going to arbitration. And then withdrawing from the process in a move that would suppress detail of the evidence against him, at least for awhile.

don't you find it a bit hypocritical that cyclingnews publishes a feel good list of quotes about Hincapie (Bauer even saying his 2005 pla d'adet was his career highlight), that CVV and Levi end up 1-2 in USA pro challenge without a mention that both are admitted dopers/witnesses in the Postal case. All ensnared in the Armstrong/Postal conspiracy, all part of a dirty generation of riders.

Yes.

 

[JA.Tri]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastersracer View Post
don't you find it a bit hypocritical that cyclingnews publishes a feel good list of quotes about Hincapie (Bauer even saying his 2005 pla d'adet was his career highlight), that CVV and Levi end up 1-2 in USA pro challenge without a mention that both are admitted dopers/witnesses in the Postal case. All ensnared in the Armstrong/Postal conspiracy, all part of a dirty generation of riders.


G Hincapie, CVV & Levi are not yet known (to us the general public) to be admitted dopers. Witnesses yes, likely dopers yes...confirmed ....no.

 

[Boeing]

Here's the all white jury



http://www.facebook.com/AmericansAgainstTheUSADA


probably posted before but whatever.

 

[D-Queued]

Here's the all white jury



http://www.facebook.com/AmericansAgainstTheUSADA


probably posted before but whatever.

Well, Lance deserves his turn to.

From 'I believe in Tyler', to Fools Follow Failure, now this.

Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery.

Dave.

 

[BroDeal]

Here's the all white jury

http://www.facebook.com/AmericansAgainstTheUSADA

probably posted before but whatever.

Someone here should infiltrate. They'll need a disguise.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Didn´t know where to post, so i do it here:

"The best of Armstrong"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPS-ygfFWCM

The poor kid who posted this certainly had other ideas than the best rated comment including Bassons.

 

[Boeing]

Someone here should infiltrate. They'll need a disguise.

u a funny mofo at times

thanks for being better than me

 

[gree0232]

What about Hamilton's or Lands' statements about their experiences with Lance? They sound extremely credible and the only response from Lance's camp has been that we should not be believe those two because they have lied in the past. While we both know that's not really a valid argument, it's been successful with the Believers.

What about all the other riders who claim they have no idea what they are talking about?

Right, omerta - conspiracy ... not a lot of evidence.

Onec again, if you know EXACTLY what is going on, and yet find it hard to produce evidence to back up statements?

The simple fact of the matter is that there statements were looked into by a CRIMINAL investigation, and the case they made did not rise to the standard to bring charges.

And this is about that process, and, quite frankly, if this is what it takes to get ONE cyclist? Then the anti-doping process is fundamentally flawed.

Take a good look at what AFLD did when they nabbed Ricco et. al. They knew what the guys were doing, they designed the tests to nab them ... viola, incontrovertable proof. That is what successful anti-doping looks like.

However, when Bradley Wiggins wins a tour and is sucker punched with cowardly innuendo and baseless accusations sans proof? How are a bunch of people hurling accusations from the shadows ... right? Productive?

Wiggins was right when he called such antics the c-word.

You don't have to 'love' Lance Armstrong to find the current process fundamentaly flawed in terms of due process.

Worse, as I scan the headlines on cyclingnews, I am not seeing anything new - I see **** Pound and Paul Kimmage - exacting their pound of flesh. It appears to be old hat, the CPT Ahab's of cycling out after the white whale.

Lance has retired, maybe his critics should too.

Finally, the courts seem to work for most criminals, why are we using an arbitration process where the accusers get two of three chairs? Why not simply adopt a criminal code, an adversarial system governed by objective judges ... seems to work every where else pretty well ...

Added bonus, it keeps the ingrained politics of UCI vs. WADA, etc. out of the process entirely. Which side wins? The side that presents the evidence and makes the best case ... as it should be.

Why isn't it?