USADA - Armstrong

[Polish]

Well, once it gets to the arbitration panel it won't be independent of Lance. He gets to pick one, has to agree on the other. can't be found guilty if his own men don't agree. Will he be stabbed by his own servant? worst form of treachery.

Do you know if the arbitration decision has to be unanimous? Or is it 2 out 3. Lance will get 2 in his favor. Not the USADA "picked" arbitrator though. Will it be a Hung Panel if it is 2 out of 3?

 

[Maxiton]

Well, once it gets to the arbitration panel it won't be independent of Lance. He gets to pick one, has to agree on the other. can't be found guilty if his own men don't agree. Will he be stabbed by his own servant? worst form of treachery.

You mean he's going to put Polish on there? Polish, will you accept? You'd never pull a Judas on Lance, would you? (Insert pull pun here.)

 

[Polish]

You mean he's going to put Polish on there? Polish, will you accept? You'd never pull a Judas on Lance, would you? (Insert pull pun here.)

Post not poster Maxitron. Please.
Easy on the Apostle stuff too. Pointless.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Post not poster Maxitron. Please.
Easy on the Apostle stuff too. Pointless.

You never post anything based on reality, so the choice is play the poster, or ignore list and leave your annoying nonsense as the last word.

 

[Muriel]

And if Armstrong refuses to select a representative on the panel? And/or refuses to agree on the joint pick? Seriously, if you're going to contest the validity of the panel or refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of USADA then what better way than to stall the process or generally play the ***?

What actions might USADA have at their disposal in that instance? Can they make selections for Armstrong for instance? Can he be held 'in contempt' (or whatever the equivalent might be)?

 

[Maxiton]

Post not poster Maxitron. Please.
Easy on the Apostle stuff too. Pointless.

You never post anything based on reality, so the choice is play the poster, or ignore list and leave your annoying nonsense as the last word.

You're both right. Deleted.

 

[red_flanders]

As tempting as it can be, the rules here clearly state a violation for insulting other forum members. I get that folks don't like to "report" posts, (I certainly never liked it) but that's the recourse available to you within the rules. Or you can ignore posts you feel aren't worthy of responses. Or use the ignore list. Or send a PM if you feel there is a long-term issue or consistent trolling. Thanks.

The topic is USADA/Armstrong. Next set of personal insults will unfortunately result in sanctions. Maxiton and Polish, thank you for working it out.

Let's keep it respectful, no matter what your feelings about a particular poster.

 

[BotanyBay]

The ASO is in charge of TdF Titles. Not the USADA.


...I also predict the French Organization ASO will thumb their nose at the USADA.

ASO's races are sanctioned by the UCI (signatories to the WADA code). USADA is the duly appointed anti-doping authority for sports organizations in the USA that are also signatories to the WADA code (signatories such as USAC). Having signed-on to the code, they are all bound TO that code.

It's like getting a DUI in Kentucky. If Kentucky has reciprocity with Florida, then that DUI also counts in Florida.

ASO could "try" to raise a middle-finger to the process, but I predict they won't. They didn't bother doing it with Contador (or anyone else).

And don't look for Pat McQuaid to come out swinging. He's probably currently scouting real estate for himself in Bora-Bora.

 

[MarkvW]

Anna doesn't understand LA that well. Lance knows he's F'd already in regards to the USADA. Every single bit of his current game plan is coming out of a play book, not out of stupidity. He's not trying to endear himself to Travis, but to his fan and sponsor base. Right now he needs the kinds of fans that would be willing to hole him up in their basement if he was caught molesting kids. He's looking for that kind of loyalty, and he is just rallying the troops.

All part of the plan, as the battle is soon to get uglier than we've ever seen it get.

When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, bang on the table and call the other lawyer names. Maybe all the yelling will shake something loose and someone will do something stupid.

I also think USADA might sever its relationship with USA Cycling if USA Cycling interfered with its independence.

Can't get too ugly with USADA because they're not going to respond to Armstrong's taunts.

If Armstrong gets too mean with his old domestiques, they could always go thermonuclear on his posterior and go on TV. WHAT A SHOW that would be!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Nevada City is a signatory to USADA via its USAC contract. Gila, too. I'll be moving up a spot! Prize money coming 13's way. Lance, paypal's cool... p.s.: let Levi know.

There's a Leadville win to vacate too. Not a UCI sanctioned event though...

 

[BotanyBay]

There's a Leadville win to vacate too. Not a UCI sanctioned event though...

Doesn't MTB nest-in to USAC via NORBA? Was it not a NORBA event?

 

[DirtyWorks]

..I also think USADA might sever its relationship with USA Cycling if USA Cycling interfered with its independence.

USADA is not set up like that. They can do what WADA is already doing, publicly suggesting some sports do things to improve anti-doping, but that's it.
We'd be lucky if the legitimacy of the UCI is publicly challenged for once. To think that this would shake up the IOC AND the UCI is just not likely.

USOC/IOC desperately needs USADA to maintain the appearance there's an aggressive anti-doping system for Olympic sports. WADA and the national anti-doping administrations were created because the IOC's pretend anti-doping system was finally uncovered and the IOC was embarrassed for once.

You are 100% right about the whining and complaining...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Doesn't MTB nest-in to USAC via NORBA? Was it not a NORBA event?

USAC bought NORBA way back when then proceeded to gut it. the name NORBA is gone. You pay twice to race road and mountain in USAC. That's part of the "charge what the market will bear" strategy at USAC.

Leadville and a bunch of other events like the All Mountain World Championships happen anyway.

There are no USAC categories at Leadville, no USAC rules, the course isn't to USAC specification either. The recent owner is 24-hour fitness. Dave Weins(sp??) came in a close second to a doped Armstrong. Weins is Mr. Leadville, pretty much ruling that event.

 

[frenchfry]

Well, once it gets to the arbitration panel it won't be independent of Lance. He gets to pick one, has to agree on the other. can't be found guilty if his own men don't agree. Will he be stabbed by his own servant? worst form of treachery.

Christopher Campbell would be an obvious choice. If I remember correctly he usually figures dopers are victims of a faulty process and therefore should logically buy into Armstrong's bs talking points. After all, he followed Floyd down that path - although Floyd had the advantage of Baker's nifty powerpoint presentation.

Edit: to be fair to Christopher Campbell, he has indeed ruled against Hellebuyck and O'Bee (among others) so my initial comment isn't totally justified. I did find that his ruling in favor of Floyd went against all logic and the facts but maybe he has seen the light since.

For some interesting reading:

http://www.usada.org/arbitration-decisions/

 

[Dr.Sahl]

First off. This is not just about Armstrong. This is about taking down alot of people that contaminate new young riders etc and ofc all the fraud.

Secound off. I know the vast majority was doped when Armstrong had his wins and even before (we are talking extreme doping with teams organizing it) so I don't try to hunt Armstrong only in my following comment but..

Why does he not just come clean ?? we have seen alot of other people do the same, a good example of this could be Riis. He didnt have to come forth and he never got caught (something LA fans often use) but Riis wanted people to know what happened and that it needs to stop.. Thats why I don't get why Armstrong wont come clean, instead he keeps provoking the ADA by saying he is the only clean cyclist and that he beat all the other dopers fair, its sickening.

For you guys that wanna say (but you never know he doped, give him the doubt) with all other riders, I don't see people on this forum complain etc, they call them dopers right away... but its so obvious that all doped back then, with all the "brave" riders that actually came clean we know that as a fact.


As for your taxpayer money being wasted... I can only laugh... thats the most lame exuse I have ever seen. you should be proud that USADA actually wants to show an example and bring down these people, maybe this will save some of the new young riders from getting Cancer (yes I said it, why do you think Armstrong got it ???)

Its important to show the world that doping should not be tolerated on teams (sure you can't prevent each individual) but atleast nobody ends up getting the "Either you take it or you are done" remark from team doctors.


As for LA, I don't personaly like him, but I always respected him anyway, I still think he provoked this ending himself and I really hope he will get crushed from it along with the others.


All this being said, I still want JB to get punished the most... a shame Armstrong didnt just come clean and help bring don't the doctors etc.. I would have really respected him then..

I also want to state, that I think you guys are right about the "keep the winner blank" on those 7 years and note why...

 

[patricknd]

let's review the balded...

it's hard to argue with the inherent reasonableness of the point made. it is squarely on the mark.

yet, when viewed closer and with the eventual outcome in mind, the point is one of the biggest blunders armstrong's team wants the usada to commit. and you 131313, one of the keenest and most valuable commentators here, are falling right for the bait!

explaining...the usada 15-page indictment is nothing short of a declaration of the total confrontation with armstrong, call it a war if you will. i am not a privy anymore, but i guess this attitude is the result of the long-running accumulated frustration with the in-your-face arrogant behavior of the accused despite the wealth of evidence of his doping.

usada is run by the people who are too smart to fall for the bait armstrong's laweres want them to - that is, transforming a clear-cut doping case into a public relations spectacle... usada will ignore and never comment on the reasons why armstrong wants the hearing closed, which he undoubtedly will. Doing otherwise is to fight the war the way your opponent wants, a big no-no when the stakes are high.

armstrong, as i expect him to, through his invariable arrogance will eventually dig his own grave and i expect the usada not interfering the digging

or we could review the bolded

i seem to remember you carrying on about what a hot shot novitsky was, and how armstrong's goose was cooked. i think we all know how that turned out, don't we?

let's hope that as the original poster stated they take care to avoid procedural errors. i don't want to listen to anymore whining like the clemens thread

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Anna Zimmerman's latest blog entry is on the mark yet again:

http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.nl/2012/06/out-classing-lance-armstrongs-attorneys.html

A must read.

I was looking for a thread devoted to discussing only Lance's response letter. But really, this piece covers most of it.

 

[Big Doopie]

First off. This is not just about Armstrong. This is about taking down alot of people that contaminate new young riders etc and of all the fraud.

bingo.

and acting as a deterrent.

the hope of establishing a cleaner cycling goes out the window as soon as you let sport's greatest cheater leave with all his fraudulent gains intact.

 

[joe_papp]

And if Armstrong refuses to select a representative on the panel? And/or refuses to agree on the joint pick? Seriously, if you're going to contest the validity of the panel or refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of USADA then what better way than to stall the process or generally play the ***?

What actions might USADA have at their disposal in that instance? Can they make selections for Armstrong for instance? Can he be held 'in contempt' (or whatever the equivalent might be)?

He'd lose the case by default and come out looking all the more foolish.

LA's response to USADA is also an example of the scatter-gun approach: throw/shoot everything you've got at a wall, and see what sticks (both w/ respect to the anti-doping process and the PR campaign). But USADA's protocol is fairly bulletproof, having already been tested in federal court during BALCO and not found wanting.

He had one chance to force the review board to give him the witness details but they blew it by taking the scatter-gun approach and firing off hysterical claims. Now the only hope is, as I said previously, for two of the arbiters to have had (or have currently) cancer, or concede defeat but continue trying the case in public like BotanyBay stated and desperately try to rally any and all brain-dead yet oddly-emotional fans who'll "support" him.

If he refuses to participate in the USADA arbitration process though and loses by default, he also loses the chance to appeal to CAS. And I can't imagine a federal court buying into the argument that, after declining to see the process through and seek the review of CAS, that Armstrong merits their intervention (a federal court's). I'm not even a pretend-lawyer though, so maybe there is some esoteric anti-USADA argument he can lawyer-up further towards making...

 

[thehog]

He'd lose the case by default and come out looking all the more foolish.

LA's response to USADA is also an example of the scatter-gun approach: throw/shoot everything you've got at a wall, and see what sticks (both w/ respect to the anti-doping process and the PR campaign). But USADA's protocol is fairly bulletproof, having already been tested in federal court during BALCO and not found wanting.

He had one chance to force the review board to give him the witness details but they blew it by taking the scatter-gun approach and firing off hysterical claims. Now the only hope is, as I said previously, for two of the arbiters to have had (or have currently) cancer, or concede defeat but continue trying the case in public like BotanyBay stated and desperately try to rally any and all brain-dead yet oddly-emotional fans who'll "support" him.

If he refuses to participate in the USADA arbitration process though and loses by default, he also loses the chance to appeal to CAS. And I can't imagine a federal court buying into the argument that, after declining to see the process through and seek the review of CAS, that Armstrong merits their intervention (a federal court's). I'm not even a pretend-lawyer though, so maybe there is some esoteric anti-USADA argument he can lawyer-up further towards making...

Question: Of those outside of Armstrong; Do they appear at the same hearing or seperate hearings if charges are laid?

 

[131313]

Edit: to be fair to Christopher Campbell, he has indeed ruled against Hellebuyck and O'Bee

don't really know anything about the Hellebuyck proceedings, but I think Saddam had a better chance of beating the rap than O'Positive. I don't the arbiter had much choice in that one. His mom would have found him guilty...

 

[131313]

Why does he not just come clean ??

At so many points during the federal investigation I wondered the same thing; admit to the doping, claim he was a victim, too...."cheat or be cheated", like Landis said. It's too late for that now, though. He's walked WAY too far across that shattering pond of ice. There's no other option left other than to try to get to the other side. Good luck, Lance!

 

[joe_papp]

Question: Of those outside of Armstrong; Do they appear at the same hearing or seperate hearings if charges are laid?

that's a very good question and BALCO isn't a good reference point, since in USPSConspiracy they're all charged as part of a conspiracy, whereas BALCO were individual prosecutions (anti-doping), iirc.

What happens in a RICO / mob case in criminal court, just out of curiosity? In Italy at a mob trial the accused can all appear together, no? Maybe Nuremberg Trials format? Defendants all in the dock like at the Nuremberg Trials?

At so many points during the federal investigation I wondered the same thing; admit to the doping, claim he was a victim, too...."cheat or be cheated", like Landis said. It's too late for that now, though. He's walked WAY too far across that shattering pond of ice. There's no other option left other than to try to get to the other side. Good luck, Lance!

I would think for the same reason Ullrich really didn't come clean in any detail: fear of civil liability for fraud?

 

[131313]

I would think for the same reason Ullrich really didn't come clean in any detail: fear of civil liability for fraud?

Maybe, but he could make some half-a$$ed denial like Ullrich to limit the damage. But even if not, so what? Pay the SCA their money. He can afford it. Trek, Nike et al? Well, they paid someone to advertise their brand, and they got what they paid for. I think they'll have a big uphill road claiming damages.

If he couched it right he still could have painted himself as a victim of circumstance and a lot of folks would still be standing right by his side (the public and sponsors alike). Now, he's morphing into Barry Bonds and Scarface all rolled into one angry mess. And in the end, fighting this is going to end up costing him WAY more than a tearful admission ever would have, IMHO.

 

[mastersracer]

Maybe, but he could make some half-a$$ed denial like Ullrich to limit the damage. But even if not, so what? Pay the SCA their money. He can afford it. Trek, Nike et al? Well, they paid someone to advertise their brand, and they got what they paid for. I think they'll have a big uphill road claiming damages.

If he couched it right he still could have painted himself as a victim of circumstance and a lot of folks would still be standing right by his side (the public and sponsors alike). Now, he's morphing into Barry Bonds and Scarface all rolled into one angry mess. And in the end, fighting this is going to end up costing him WAY more than a tearful admission ever would have, IMHO.

speaking of Nike, I'm curious whether there's a basis for a class-action lawsuit against them. Suppose you bought Livestrong goods due to Armstrong making a specific representation of himself (and thereby the product). Is there some basis for arguing they made a fraudulent claim in the marketing of that product? Clearly, the value of those goods depended on that representation and has declined enormously. Couldn't this potentially be a multi-million dollar lawsuit?