USADA - Armstrong

Page 100 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Merckx index said:
Of course you do. Which is why you and the rest of us here were so glad when it was revealed that George had testified. And even happier to learn that a total of more than ten ex-teammates had testified. We all understand that a case based on just Floyd, or Floyd and Tyler, would be nowhere near as strong as one based on more credible witnesses.

This case rests entirely on witnesses--unless the expert panel really flubbed or were bought off on the blood values--and that makes credibility crucial.

Thanks for repeating what I said! If it makes it easier for you to understand by putting it in your own words, go for it.
The case is not based on Floyd on any other athlete. Its based on Armstrong.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
thehog said:
That's a little silly don't you think? He has already denounced the book. I think even Floyd would admit his credibility has been destroyed long ago. That doesn't change the fact he is now telling the truth.

Credibility is also not a point of law. You don't base your defence on credibility.

If anything it could be argued that Lands was "protecting" Armstrong by making those statements. That would go a long way to proving the point that Armstrong did indeed dope and it required compliance from all those around him.

You also could turn it around and state the same. Armstrong has printed the same statements in his books.
"Renounced" (the book) is probably a better word.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
If USADA can give only a reduced suspension (1 year), why haven't any other riders been charged, specifically the four active riders (LL, CVV, GH, DZ). I thought admission of doping was sufficient to be sanctioned (wasn't that the case with Millar?). Some of the charges include LA administering prohibited substances to others, which would amount to doping.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Lance knows he has nothing to contest in federal court yet, as the USADA process has not yet run its course. Look for him to sue USADA after they skewer him and take away his fraudulent accomplishments.
From the New York Daily News:

“unsanctioned promises of absolution” and were “coerced into giving false testimony.” Robert Luskin


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/lance-armstrong-responds-u-s-anti-doping-agency-allegations-doping-allegations-result-coerced-false-testimony-article-1.1100887#ixzz1ydIuTyWc

No sorry, they are moving that way already. From this article it sounds as though they may be questioning the right of USADA to, in effect, "plea bargin" and cloak his accusers which may be a valid point. Does the USADA have that power? So, right there, that give you one basis they will most likely go to court with....
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
thehog said:
The case is not based on Floyd on any other athlete. Its based on Armstrong.
I glad to know your the only one with all the evidence at your fingure tips.

All I've seen is a bunch of snippets of named and unamed from sources.
The bulk of evidence is MIA. Guilt has to be proven not prosumed. Did the USADA act out its jurisdiction in offering imunity for testimony? That will be decided by another court.

The point is the legality of their process. As said in my post above, I think they are moving in that direction.
 
BillytheKid said:
From the New York Daily News:

“unsanctioned promises of absolution” and were “coerced into giving false testimony.” Robert Luskin


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-team/lance-armstrong-responds-u-s-anti-doping-agency-allegations-doping-allegations-result-coerced-false-testimony-article-1.1100887#ixzz1ydIuTyWc

No sorry, they are moving that way already. From this article it sounds as though they may be questioning the right of USADA to, in effect, "plea bargin" and cloak his accusers which may be a valid point. Does the USADA have that power? So, right there, that give you one basis they will most likely go to court with....
No there not suggesting a plea bargain at all. The Armstrong camp is suggesting the witnesses were coerced into giving false testimony. i.e. that Armstrong doped.

Good luck proving they were coerced!
 
BillytheKid said:
I glad to know your the only one with all the evidence at your fingure tips.

All I've seen is a bunch of snippets of named and unamed from sources.
The bulk of evidence is MIA. Guilt has to be proven not prosumed. Did the USADA act out its jurisdiction in offering imunity for testimony? That will be decided by another court.

The point is the legality of their process. As said in my post above, I think they are moving in that direction.
That will be presumed! not "prosumed" which I think might be a new FRS sports drink? :eek:
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
thehog said:
No there not suggesting a plea bargain at all. The Armstrong camp is suggesting the witnesses were coerced into giving false testimony. i.e. that Armstrong doped.

Good luck proving they were coerced!
Yes immunity offers or plea bargins, if you will, would be the basis or part of the coercion it appears.

Actually, a high enough federal court, can easially trump the USADA if they find they acted out of their jurisdiction.

We will see if it has merit.
 
BillytheKid said:
Yes immunity offers or plea bargins, if you will, would be the basis or part of the coercion it appears.

Actually, a high enough federal court, can easially trump the USADA if they find they acted out of their jurisdiction.

We will see if it has merit.
That's silly. They would not be offering immunity from prosecution at a Federal or state level.

Armstrong would have to prove that the witnesses had false testimony beaten out of them under duress to a point they made up the claims against Armstrong.

You do realise that the witness statments would be part of trial and they are open for cross.

A Federal court wouldn't even bother with such a claim.

Lets turn this around the other way. Say Armstrong is right. He never doped and USADA forced 10 witnesses to sign false statement about his doping. You're actually suggesting thats what occurred? That the 10 athletes didn't think they would report that they were being cornered and harassed by USADA? you think they wouldn't have gone to WADA or the UCI for assistance? Seriously. You actually think all 10 are lying? and Armstrong never doped.
 
A few days ago I posted that Lance would only fight this in the court of public opinion. I'm now backing off that. I think there's an equal chance that once USADA files, he and his legal team will launch a full assault against every witness and every last bit of evidence, trying to spin it and discredit or smear the witnesses, even someone like Hincapie or JV, in order to survive, on top of fighting it in the court of public opinion. He'll be hoping that his attorneys can get each of them to offer an Andy Pettite type of comment. "Since you are not a physician, are you 100% certain it was blood you actually saw transfusing into Armstrong?" To which the witnesses could say "well, no." Problem is, Pettite was still somewhat friendly with Clemens and didn't want to throw him under the bus. I'm not sure some of the people who witnessed LA's actions will be so understanding.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
Animal said:
"you're"

You're welcome.
Ah yes, the contraction as opposed to the pronoun. Lack of a FSA most likely, but the change from topic to personal attack is heart warming.

I take it as a sign that I hit home with something.

Score.
 
BillytheKid said:
Ah yes, the contraction as opposed to the pronoun. Lack of a FSA most likely, but the change from topic to personal attack is heart warming.

I take it as a sign that I hit home with something.

Score.
Hardly a personal attack when someone is pointing out you have the spelling of an 8 year old.
 
Jun 1, 2011
2,500
0
0
thehog said:
That's silly. They would not be offering immunity from prosecution at a Federal or state level.

Armstrong would have to prove that the witnesses had false testimony beaten out of them under duress to a point they made up the claims against Armstrong.

You do realise that the witness statments would be part of trial and they are open for cross.

A Federal court wouldn't even bother with such a claim.

Lets turn this around the other way. Say Armstrong is right. He never doped and USADA forced 10 witnesses to sign false statement about his doping. You're actually suggesting thats what occurred? That the 10 athletes didn't think they would report that they were being cornered and harassed by USADA? you think they wouldn't have gone to WADA or the UCI for assistance? Seriously. You actually think all 10 are lying? and Armstrong never doped.
I was not limiting it the Federal or State as much as such an such an offer within USADA scope and rules as the NYP article relates. Federal and State offers may have been made? That's what the court will have to decide?
It may find traction. There is not really much more to say at this point. I still would really like to know all the evidence.

Secret proceedings stink.:D
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
A few days ago I posted that Lance would only fight this in the court of public opinion. I'm now backing off that. I think there's an equal chance that once USADA files, he and his legal team will launch a full assault against every witness and every last bit of evidence, trying to spin it and discredit or smear the witnesses, even someone like Hincapie or JV, in order to survive, on top of fighting it in the court of public opinion. He'll be hoping that his attorneys can get each of them to offer an Andy Pettite type of comment. "Since you are not a physician, are you 100% certain it was blood you actually saw transfusing into Armstrong?" To which the witnesses could say "well, no." Problem is, Pettite was still somewhat friendly with Clemens and didn't want to throw him under the bus. I'm not sure some of the people who witnessed LA's actions will be so understanding.
+1 - since Luskin specializes in federal government investigation law, I suspect they may be planning an end-around that would bypass an arbitration hearing altogether. Basically refusing to take part in the arbitration saying it is a kangaroo court and going after USADA in a federal court against criminal charges of witness coercion etc.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
BillytheKid said:
You just simply proved my point. Hog or Swine?
I thought he was being a little pedantic with the spelling too. Then I went back and looked at your posts.

Your spelling is atrocious which kind of brings up other issues????
 
Mar 19, 2009
941
0
0
"Score"? Against f*cking what? That's the first f*cking word I've said to you. You f*cking idiot.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
mastersracer said:
+1 - since Luskin specializes in federal government investigation law, I suspect they may be planning an end-around that would bypass an arbitration hearing altogether. Basically refusing to take part in the arbitration saying it is a kangaroo court and going after USADA in a federal court against criminal charges of witness coercion etc.
Well, they'll try anything. Why not? LA is paying a fortune for a hopeless case.

I think the problem with the potential attack of USADA is that no one says they're a court.

As a condition of his participation in professional sports, doesn't Armstrong consent to the oversight of USADA?
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
mastersracer said:
If USADA can give only a reduced suspension (1 year), why haven't any other riders been charged, specifically the four active riders (LL, CVV, GH, DZ). I thought admission of doping was sufficient to be sanctioned (wasn't that the case with Millar?). Some of the charges include LA administering prohibited substances to others, which would amount to doping.
I believe the minimum sentence is actually 6 months, and I wouldn't be surprised if all of those guys have their suspensions announced fairly soon...like, right after the TDF. I have to wonder if that wasn't a motivating factor for them removing themselves from Olympic consideration.

Also, since they're active witnesses it wouldn't surprise me if action isn't started against them until LA's trial is completed (but before the CAS appeal). I would imagine that USADA will gerrymander the suspension in a way that it impacts the riders the least amount, as a consideration to them for their cooperation. Personally, I think 1 year is reasonable. You have to give them consideration for cooperating, but they shouldn't just walk, either.

I don't really see what leverage these guys have. They testified for the GJ. Then, they supposedly give sworn testimony to the USADA. If that's the case, and the stories don't match, then they're looking at perjury charges, and visions of Marion Jones start dancing in their collective heads. So, they pretty much HAD to have consistent testimony. At least that's the way I see it. So, USADA really already had built-in leverage against these guys. A reduced suspension really just seems like a courtesy more than a necessity.
 
BillytheKid said:
I was not limiting it the Federal or State as much as such an such an offer within USADA scope and rules as the NYP article relates. Federal and State offers may have been made? That's what the court will have to decide?
It may find traction. There is not really much more to say at this point. I still would really like to know all the evidence.

Secret proceedings stink.:D
You missing the point. If you're going to take to Federal or State court you need to be able to show that a Federal or State law has been impinged upon. Otherwise they don't want to know.

But lets go with this shall we.

Say he does take it to Federal Court. Armstrong would have to show evidence that the witnesses indeed were coerced and gave false testimony under duress. How is he going to do that when all of the witness happily gave their testamoney? How in God's name would you go proving that one? I like to see a Federal Court rule that witness testimony is open for undue influence and thus not valid. That would set some precedent for the future!

Armstrong's going no where near Federal court. He's not going to open himself up false claims at that level. He'll be counter sued until the cows come out and prosecuted for wilful damage and witness intimidation. Not happening.

I would add: Nothing would surprise me in regards to Armstrong. He is stupid enough to get himself arrested for doing as much.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
131313 said:
They testified for the GJ. Then, they supposedly give sworn testimony to the USADA. If that's the case, and the stories don't match, then they're looking at perjury charges, and visions of Marion Jones start dancing in their collective heads. So, they pretty much HAD to have consistent testimony. At least that's the way I see it. So, USADA really already had built-in leverage against these guys. A reduced suspension really just seems like a courtesy more than a necessity.
Exactly. The "stick" for USADA was the threat of contradicting prior sworn testimony in the criminal investigation, and a possible perjury charge. Luskin is trying to claim the witnesses were coerced by USADA with threats of sanctions and "rewarded" with reduced bans. A more likely scenario is the witnesses were "coerced" by their own prior testimony in the federal grand jury.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
MarkvW said:
That's not it. Lance is not blabbing about witnesses' names because he wants to actually get the witnesses' names. He knows that he won't get them at this stage and that he will get them at a later stage pursuant to the USADA rules. Then, he'll be able to do all the smearing and extorting that he thinks he can get away with.

This is just a PR pitch to try do demonstrate how unfair the proceedings are.

And it is a stupid PR pitch, at that. Even in a death penalty case, the government doesn't even have to tell the defendant who its witnesses are at the start of the case. The witnesses are divulged in due course.
Agree completely, on both points.

Let's stop kidding ourselves. They ALREADY KNOW the identity of the witnesses. They've known for a long time, though the Olympic withdrawal probably sealed the deal on Hincapie. Probably shouldn't have chased down George when he was in the virtual yellow... Hell, most people on here know their identity. It's not really a secret. You just assume everyone who's in the know flipped.

I'm also sure that they're exerting whatever backdoor pressure they think they can get away with on those guys. Unfortunately for Bruyneel, LA and Co, they just don't have much juice in cycling anymore. Cycling has moved on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
fmk_RoI The Clinic 23

ASK THE COMMUNITY