USADA - Armstrong

[MarkvW]

Armstrong will win this, there are too many interests at stake.

But will there be a hearing?

 

[rhubroma]

But will there be a hearing?

Ah, who knows.

 

[thehog]

Ah, who knows.

The key is for the "interests" to shut down the hearing without looking like its an inside job.

That will be hard. It would be unprecedented.

 

[Merckx index]

A key issue in USADA’s case is whether they can use the Hellebuyck decision as a precedent to circumvent the SOL of eight years. They will need to do this to sanction LA for anything he did prior to the 2004 TDF.

This decision was based on this premise:

Athletes' in AAA and CAS tribunals cannot be forced to testify against themselves, they can choose not to testify. However, if they choose to testify before an AAA or CAS tribunal, they have a legal duty to testify truthfully. Hellebuyck breached that duty when he testified that he never used EPO in his 2004 hearing before the AAA and 2005 hearing before CAS. But for his perjury, Hellebuyck's records would have been expunged from 2001 through 2004. Hellebuyck cannot now come before this tribunal and in essence use his perjury as a means to avoid the consequences that should have been imposed in 2004.

Could you not also say, “Armstrong breached that duty when he testified that he never used EPO in his 2005 hearing before the SCA. But for his perjury, Armstrong's records would have been expunged from 1999 through 2005. Armstrong cannot now come before this tribunal and in essence use his perjury as a means to avoid the consequences that should have been imposed in 2005.”

There are at least two important differences between Hellebuyck and Armstrong. First, LA never testified before an AAA or CAS panel specifically empowered to determine whether he doped. He did testify in front of SCA, under oath, and the purpose of that testimony was to allow certain parties to decide whether he had doped, but the purpose of that hearing was not to determine whether he should be sanctioned in relationship to past or future competition. I don’t know whether this difference matters or not, it seems to me it shouldn’t.

A second important difference is that Hellebuyck confessed, eventually, to his perjury. He tried to argue against a further sanction by raising some technical issues, but at that point his confession of doping and perjury was a fact. So a major legal issue, I think, is whether the balance of testimony against LA can be used to establish that he perjured himself before the SCA. If it is concluded that the evidence of doping in the earlier years supports a sanction, can that fact then be used to argue that he must have committed perjury before SCA?

If it can't, then by hanging tough, LA could limit the maximum damage to two Tour titles. But if this roundabout procedure can be used, then I think the criteria set forth in Hellebuyck could apply to him:

8.15 The elements required for equitable tolling of a statute of limitations under fraudulent concealment are as follows: (1) concealment of the wrongful conduct by defendant, (2) plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the wrongful conduct, (3) plaintiff brought suit within the length of the limitations period after discovery of the wrongful conduct, (4) plaintiff's lack of knowledge of the wrongful conduct was not attributable to a lack of diligence, and (5) reliance on the fraudulent concealment. All elements have been met in this case.

Moreover, USADA apparently opened the door for a wider application of this tolling principle by providing another way of rationalizing it:

8.16 Here, the Panel determines, as an alternate basis for its decision, that permitting Hellebuyck to assert a statute of limitations period, whether substantive or procedural in nature would also allow Hellebuyck to benefit from his own misconduct. In essence, if the Panel were to permit Hellebuyck's position, the Panel would be asserting a rule that would have the effect of encouraging wrongdoers to testify falsely, and intentionally so, to AAA and CAS arbitration tribunals and then sit silent until after the expiration of the limitations period, coming clean with impunity. The Panel is of the view that the anti-doping rules were not designed or intended to create such a possibility and that allowing this would run counter to the fight for doping free sport that the anti-doping rules are built to protect. In support of this position, Travis Tygart testified as follows:

But what 1 know is, when he lied, he covered up, he took responsibility. He cheated clean athletes. And the fundamental principle that clean athletes rely on is that his results should be disqualified. Where that fits in legally within this case, I don't know because I'm not handling this case and I'm not an expert on that. But what I do know is those results deserve to be disqualified because that's what clean athletes expect. That's what they deserve for competing on a clean playing field despite the fact that he cheated them and then lied about his cheating

 

[MarkvW]

A key issue in USADA’s case is whether they can use the Hellebuyck decision as a precedent to circumvent the SOL of eight years. They will need to do this to sanction LA for anything he did prior to the 2004 TDF.

This decision was based on this premise:



Could you not also say, “Armstrong breached that duty when he testified that he never used EPO in his 2005 hearing before the SCA. But for his perjury, Armstrong's records would have been expunged from 1999 through 2005. Armstrong cannot now come before this tribunal and in essence use his perjury as a means to avoid the consequences that should have been imposed in 2005.”

There are at least two important differences between Hellebuyck and Armstrong. First, LA never testified before an AAA or CAS panel specifically empowered to determine whether he doped. He did testify in front of SCA, under oath, and the purpose of that testimony was to allow certain parties to decide whether he had doped, but the purpose of that hearing was not to determine whether he should be sanctioned in relationship to past or future competition. I don’t know whether this difference matters or not, it seems to me it shouldn’t.

A second important difference is that Hellebuyck confessed, eventually, to his perjury. He tried to argue against a further sanction by raising some technical issues, but at that point his confession of doping and perjury was a fact. So a major legal issue, I think, is whether the balance of testimony against LA can be used to establish that he perjured himself before the SCA. If it is concluded that the evidence of doping in the earlier years supports a sanction, can that fact then be used to argue that he must have committed perjury before SCA?

If it can't, then by hanging tough, LA could limit the maximum damage to two Tour titles. But if this roundabout procedure can be used, then I think the criteria set forth in Hellebuyck could apply to him:



Moreover, USADA apparently opened the door for a wider application of this tolling principle by providing another way of rationalizing it:

There is the cortisone factor, also. That might fit closely with Hellebuyck. And we may not know of other doping investigations that Armstrong successfully lied his way out of.

Otherwise, they may be stretching Hellebuyck too far.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Armstrong will win this, there are too many interests at stake.

I actually fear this will be the case. The evidence can be clear and unmistakeable, but that doesn't mean the case is closed. Wonderboy has been able to get out of scrapes in ways that would make Bill Clinton proud, and he may very well get out of this.

 

[ChrisE]

I actually fear this will be the case. The evidence can be clear and unmistakeable, but that doesn't mean the case is closed. Wonderboy has been able to get out of scrapes in ways that would make Bill Clinton proud, and he may very well get out of this.

...and I shall drink one more beer than normal that day.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes, but they're both previously-sanctioned athletes who have been painted as "bitter losers"; a bit tougher to do with those with no prior sanction.

Ahh, so the dopers that implicated LA will be sanctioned "consistent with the rules of USADA" or however you phrased it the other week, will be punished afterwards? Gotta get that timing right, and our opinions.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Ahh, so the dopers that implicated LA will be sanctioned "consistent with the rules of USADA" or however you phrased it the other week, will be punished afterwards? Gotta get that timing right, and our opinions.

131313 has an opinion rather than some shapeshifting barb filled post meant to prove the superiority of the author rather than actually creating substantive debate. I kind of like his commentary.

 

[ChrisE]

131313 has an opinion rather than some shapeshifting barb filled post meant to prove the superiority of the author rather than actually creating substantive debate. I kind of like his commentary.

I am a "shapeshifting barb"? Never been called that, I kinda like it. 13113131311 is not being consistent either so it must be contagious.

And, I do admit I have meandered back and forth about whether LA should be punished if guilty. I now pronounce I am firmly in the "I hope he gets off so TFF will bust a spring" camp.

I do like how you have evolved as well in terms of respect for LA's athletic abilities. Who would have thought him getting jammed by USADA would make you, of all people, write that beautiful post in the donkey thread. Congrats.

 

[python]

Chuba, take the previous pain from the king of backstabbers for what it felt when you got stabbed...ignore the cheap crappie chuba. Happy to see you back!

 

[JRTinMA]

The fact that Prop 29 failed a dismal death shows Armstrong's standing with Goverment is close to zero.

Also the public is against him. If you can't get a cigarette taxed passed in a health conscious state then everyone thinks you're a knob.

1m for Hati, 1.5m for Prop 29, 150k for planned parenthood.

It's fun to play with other peoples money.

It was the closest race in California history failing by less then 1%. I have no idea if its true that LAF donated 1.5MM but the tobacco lobby spent 50MM on a misinformation campaign designed to confuse voters. Support fell 20% after the misinformation campaign. Armstrong may be an idiot but the failure of prop 29 has nothing to do with his standing with the government.

 

[python]

Ahh, so the dopers that implicated LA will be sanctioned "consistent with the rules of USADA" or however you phrased it the other week, will be punished afterwards? Gotta get that timing right, and our opinions.

take it easy, phanboy

Please, explain to us slowly why the accused of doping your home boy is less deserving of the usada hammer than the 'dopers that implicated Armstrong's.. Tell us phanboy.

 

[Jeremiah]

Why?

...and I shall drink one more beer than normal that day.

Open ended question. IOW, do what you do best!

 

[ChrisE]

take it easy, phanboy

Please, explain to us slowly why the accused of doping your home boy is less deserving of the usada hammer than the 'dopers that implicated Armstrong's.. Tell us phanboy.

Hi RH. Glad to see you back.

Please post a link where I say he is "less deserving". Take your time.

I wrote I hope he gets away with it. Please try to keep up....you just can't delete my posts or ban me whenever I start to make your head hurt in here. Thanks.

 

[patricknd]

...and I shall drink one more beer than normal that day.

so that would be 1.5 beers?

i'm sure that many here would love to join you in a toast to the continued good health of L.A.

 

[python]

Hi RH. Glad to see you back.

Please post a link where I say he is "less deserving". Take your time.

I wrote I hope he gets away with it. Please try to keep up....you just can't delete my posts or ban me whenever I start to make your head hurt in here. Thanks.

Hi phanboy, please stick to the topic of your infatuation. As usual since you have no clue who is challenging you, there is no reason to discuss the posters. Stick to the topic of your infatuation and perhaps you can avoid a ban.

I repeat why is your home boy is any less deserving of the usada hammer...if you want to discuss doping of those who accused him, go the appropriate thread, phanboy.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I am a "shapeshifting barb"? Never been called that, I kinda like it. 13113131311 is not being consistent either so it must be contagious.

And, I do admit I have meandered back and forth about whether LA should be punished if guilty. I now pronounce I am firmly in the "I hope he gets off so TFF will bust a spring" camp.

I do like how you have evolved as well in terms of respect for LA's athletic abilities. Who would have thought him getting jammed by USADA would make you, of all people, write that beautiful post in the donkey thread. Congrats.

I didn't bust a spring when the federal case was closed. No reason to bust one if he gets off this. He wouldn't be the first lying narcissist sociopath to walk.

As for respecting his athletic abilities, I was originally a fan because of them, no reason to deny their existence. I don't think he would have won 7 titles, or maybe even one without doping, but that doesn't mean I think he was an also ran in relation to ability. I think he would have made a fine classics rider regardless. My beef has and always will be with the way he has treated others in his effort to hide his fraud. I don't, and never will like bullies, and I always like to see them have to take their medicine. He may not have to, but here's to hope!

 

[red_flanders]

USADA/Armstrong is the topic. Not each others' posting styles, posting history, consistency, etc. This is a place to discuss issues around doping in cycling, and if you can't get past the personal histories, your tenure will be short.

I look forward to seeing more from y'all, there are truly intelligent posts coming from each and every one of ya. Let's stick to that. Thank you!

 

[JA.Tri]

I tend to disagree. He doesn't actually have to present any evidence. He just has to deny the accusations. What a hearing will do is give a chance for his lawyers to cross examine the witnesses. It would be interesting to see how many of them take up the chance to throw their career's away now they can't be anonymous anymore. It's the least they should be required to do if they are going to send Armstrong down for the same thing.

At present, this matter is not a criminal case. As such the qualification "beyond reasonable doubt" does not apply. Rather the burden of proof has shifted from being entirely on the accuser, to being shared with the accused now having a substantial burden to establish their position.

Therefore I do not think LA can just stand back and observe "the plane fly by" with he and attorneys attempting to "shoot them down". He will need to provide evidence substantiating his position.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Ahh, so the dopers that implicated LA will be sanctioned "consistent with the rules of USADA" or however you phrased it the other week, will be punished afterwards? Gotta get that timing right, and our opinions.

I think 131313 knows what he is talking about.

 

[JA.Tri]

I didn't bust a spring when the federal case was closed. No reason to bust one if he gets off this. He wouldn't be the first lying narcissist sociopath to walk.

As for respecting his athletic abilities, I was originally a fan because of them, no reason to deny their existence. I don't think he would have won 7 titles, or maybe even one without doping, but that doesn't mean I think he was an also ran in relation to ability. I think he would have made a fine classics rider regardless. My beef has and always will be with the way he has treated others in his effort to hide his fraud. I don't, and never will like bullies, and I always like to see them have to take their medicine. He may not have to, but here's to hope!

Re: Bolded...That!

I would love to see Christophe Bassons and/or Filippo Simeoni called (among others) to demonstrate Lance's enforcement of Omerta. While not directly relevant to Lance's doping, CB/FS et al's testimony might persuade the Tribunal that Lance was among the chief "enforcers" and "enablers"...and most influential to "deny".

 

[JA.Tri]

Were any/all of the 10+ witnesses sanctioned before Lance's hearing I am sure Lance would use that to his great advantage*.

Something like:

"You provide evidence from proven dopers...I like my credibility...."
"These proven dopers...have effectively lied by omission...accepting accolades when they knew darn well they had cheated to achieve those accolades"
And on and on.........

No way should Lance obtain that advantage. Let all go in with the "same" apparent "credibility".

* at least in his mind


Edit: Some may be already sanctioned ...Tyler, Floyd...that will perhaps unfortunately afford them less credibility than Lance....

 

[thehog]

"Mr. Landis is an admitted, proven liar,"

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/28/4597734/landis-and-hamilton-part-of-armstrong.html#storylink=cpy

- how does one be an admitted proven liar?

 

[thehog]

It was the closest race in California history failing by less then 1%. I have no idea if its true that LAF donated 1.5MM but the tobacco lobby spent 50MM on a misinformation campaign designed to confuse voters. Support fell 20% after the misinformation campaign. Armstrong may be an idiot but the failure of prop 29 has nothing to do with his standing with the government.

Scoreboard. Still failed.

Armstrong = L loser.