USADA - Armstrong

[TexPat]

In a major look at Armstrong’s career and achievements, in the context of the USADA case, Edward Pickering writes: “A few days after interviewing Lance Armstrong in Austin, Texas, for this magazine on the occasion of his comeback, in late 2008, I got The Call.

“It’s not unusual for me to contact interviewees after we’ve spoken. It’s sometimes necessary to follow up and check a couple of facts, or explore a line of inquiry that we didn’t have time for.

“This one was different.

“Number withheld.

“‘Hey Ed, it’s Lance Armstrong,’ said the voice at the other end.”


..........

How many people have had The Call? I thought I was special.

Guess I'm going to the magazine shop this morning to part with my hard-earned 20 bucks for the issue.

 

[MacRoadie]

More details here

Ok, NOW can we use "Cancer Jesus"?

 

[TexPat]

Ok, NOW can we use "Cancer Jesus"?

Poor Jesus--now he's being associated with The Most Tested Athlete in History. Maybe this would be a better topic for the religion thread. Sad misappropriation of iconography. Funny as hell, though

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm still ruminating the article recently put up here...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/legal-opinion-armstrongs-arguments-against-usada

my thoughts ....it's an uphill climb. At the same time I don't think USADA would have moved forward with a weak prospect.

I have faith.
C'mon Travis!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm still ruminating the article recently put up here...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/legal-opinion-armstrongs-arguments-against-usada

my thoughts ....it's an uphill climb. At the same time I don't think USADA would have moved forward with a weak prospect.

I have faith.
C'mon Travis!

Yea, the article points out some legitimate hurdles, but I wouldn't get too worked up about any of them. I get the sense that the case is very strong, and the statutes appear to provide enough room for the USADA to have proceeded and to continue to proceed in the manner they have. I think the witness intimidation thing will be a pretty big cloud over Armstrong's protestations of a star chamber.

 

[Race Radio]

I'm still ruminating the article recently put up here...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/legal-opinion-armstrongs-arguments-against-usada

my thoughts ....it's an uphill climb. At the same time I don't think USADA would have moved forward with a weak prospect.

I have faith.
C'mon Travis!

I like the article but there is a far amount of incorrect information.

If Armstrong decides to fight the sanction then he gets all the evidence. Witnesses, tests, photo, video, tapes, emails, everything.

The review board was not provided "in one way or another – all relevant information with regard to those violations to the board" They were given very limited information. USADA has enough evidence to sanction Armstrong, they only gave the review board enough to move to the next phase. (Cyclingnews edit also points this out)

Tolling the SOL does not require perjury but an active conspiracy to cover up the evidence. USADA has plenty of that. Regardless he is correct that SOL and the conspiracy charges are the hardest to prove

The hearing is not set for November. There is the chance that Armstrong will not fight the sanction and there will be no hearing

 

[mewmewmew13]

I like the article but there is a far amount of incorrect information.

If Armstrong decides to fight the sanction then he gets all the evidence. Witnesses, tests, photo, video, tapes, emails, everything.

The review board was not provided "in one way or another – all relevant information with regard to those violations to the board" They were given very limited information. USADA has enough evidence to sanction Armstrong, they only gave the review board enough to move to the next phase. (Cyclingnews edit also points this out)

Tolling the SOL does not require perjury but an active conspiracy to cover up the evidence. USADA has plenty of that. Regardless he is correct that SOL and the conspiracy charges are the hardest to prove

The hearing is not set for November. There is the chance that Armstrong will not fight the sanction and there will be no hearing

THanks RR.
The article made a couple of points sound a little confusing from earlier understanding.

 

[python]

Mew, good to have you posted the link coz I missed it. ..

Still, I took time reading it carefully and - to put it mildly - it is full of
Misinformation. For example., the us federal rules of evidence won't have any weight for the antidoping panel no matter how many times Armstrong tries to obfuscate. If he is sure the federal law was broken, he should file the charge with the criminal court...So far, zilch, nada except for lots of spin. He knows that such motion will be thrown out delivering him another public defiet.

Hence some spinner lawyer from Armstrong's spin machine 'contactd' the CN.

 

[MarkvW]

I like the article but there is a far amount of incorrect information.

If Armstrong decides to fight the sanction then he gets all the evidence. Witnesses, tests, photo, video, tapes, emails, everything.

The review board was not provided "in one way or another – all relevant information with regard to those violations to the board" They were given very limited information. USADA has enough evidence to sanction Armstrong, they only gave the review board enough to move to the next phase. (Cyclingnews edit also points this out)

Tolling the SOL does not require perjury but an active conspiracy to cover up the evidence. USADA has plenty of that. Regardless he is correct that SOL and the conspiracy charges are the hardest to prove

The hearing is not set for November. There is the chance that Armstrong will not fight the sanction and there will be no hearing

One point you make is incorrect. You categorically state that "tolling the SOL does not require perjury but an active conspiracy to cover up the evidence." We do NOT know that that principle is operative. We know that USADA is advocating that principle and we know that Armstrong will advocate against that principle (if he contests). We also know that the arbitrators (or CAS) will decide the validity of the principle in the course of the arbitration proceedings.

The fraud-by-concealment theory is an attempt to broaden the scope of Hellebuyck. It may be adopted and it may not be adopted. This is very much an open question. It is a mistake to assert that it is the rule.

 

[Oldman]

One point you make is incorrect. You categorically state that "tolling the SOL does not require perjury but an active conspiracy to cover up the evidence." We do NOT know that that principle is operative. We know that USADA is advocating that principle and we know that Armstrong will advocate against that principle (if he contests). We also know that the arbitrators (or CAS) will decide the validity of the principle in the course of the arbitration proceedings.

The fraud-by-concealment theory is an attempt to broaden the scope of Hellebuyck. It may be adopted and it may not be adopted. This is very much an open question. It is a mistake to assert that it is the rule.

USADA could be concentrating on something recent for all we know and throw in the SOL vulnerable items for good measure and not defend them. Just getting them before an arbitrator will allow SCA and anyone with an interest to continue pursuit of LA. Civil suits aren't about "winning"; they're about settlements.

 

[MarkvW]

USADA could be concentrating on something recent for all we know and throw in the SOL vulnerable items for good measure and not defend them. Just getting them before an arbitrator will allow SCA and anyone with an interest to continue pursuit of LA. Civil suits aren't about "winning"; they're about settlements.

I think it's noncontroversial that the acts of the old doping conspiracy get used to prove the recent doping and doping conspiracy. Also, some old stuff (the cortisone, for example) is closer to Hellebuyck.

I'm not that up on the SCA, but it seems to me that they'll only profit if a Tour win that they paid a bonus for gets tossed because of fraud. I'm not sure about that, though.

 

[SilentAssassin]

Would it be a surprise if Greg Lemond was a witness.

 

[D-Queued]

Would it be a surprise if Greg Lemond was a witness.

The Trek settlement (in favor of Greg) did not invoke a gag order.

Oh, you didn't know about the Trek settlement?

Dave.

 

[SilentAssassin]

Until we know who these other eight witnesses are we don't know how strong this case is. Seems like the so called test results were also pretty weak.

This case could last for years. I was right about the Federal Investigation being closed, and I think I'm right about the USADA charges eventually being dropped or dismissed.

 

[D-Queued]

Until we know who these other eight witnesses are we don't know how strong this case is. Seems like the so called test results were also pretty weak.

This case could last for years. I was right about the Federal Investigation being closed, and I think I'm right about the USADA charges eventually being dropped or dismissed.

Ok, just because you said so, I agree, you are right.

Happy?

If you believe my sincerity, I will believe yours.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

One point you make is incorrect. You categorically state that "tolling the SOL does not require perjury but an active conspiracy to cover up the evidence." We do NOT know that that principle is operative. We know that USADA is advocating that principle and we know that Armstrong will advocate against that principle (if he contests). We also know that the arbitrators (or CAS) will decide the validity of the principle in the course of the arbitration proceedings.

The fraud-by-concealment theory is an attempt to broaden the scope of Hellebuyck. It may be adopted and it may not be adopted. This is very much an open question. It is a mistake to assert that it is the rule.

Yes, but the case for tolling because of a conspiracy is as (and probably more) legally sound than doing so for perjury. I don't believe the arbitration committee made a ruling based on statute regarding perjury so while that case may be distinguishable, I don't think the underlying reasoning is hard to apply to a conspiracy.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

As you know, sometimes distinguishable facts are distinguishable, and sometimes they don't matter at all. I'm betting on the latter in this case.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Until we know who these other eight witnesses are we don't know how strong this case is. Seems like the so called test results were also pretty weak.

This case could last for years. I was right about the Federal Investigation being closed, and I think I'm right about the USADA charges eventually being dropped or dismissed.

Let me know how that works out for ya'.

 

[MarkvW]

Yes, but the case for tolling because of a conspiracy is as (and probably more) legally sound than doing so for perjury. I don't believe the arbitration committee made a ruling based on statute regarding perjury so while that case may be distinguishable, I don't think the underlying reasoning is hard to apply to a conspiracy.

I like Hellebuyck because a person who lies to an adjudicatory body should never be able to benefit from a favorable adjudication secured because of that lie.

Any kind of cheating, however, depends intrinsically upon concealment. USADA is going to have to come up with an argument that doesn't render the antidoping statute of limitations meaningless. If you stretch the concealment doctrine to its fullest extent, an antidoping official could ask each person before each race whether or not that person doped. If the person lies, then there effectively would be no limitation period.

It will be interesting to see how that issue sorts out.

 

[Race Radio]

One point you make is incorrect. You categorically state that "tolling the SOL does not require perjury but an active conspiracy to cover up the evidence." We do NOT know that that principle is operative. We know that USADA is advocating that principle and we know that Armstrong will advocate against that principle (if he contests). We also know that the arbitrators (or CAS) will decide the validity of the principle in the course of the arbitration proceedings.

The fraud-by-concealment theory is an attempt to broaden the scope of Hellebuyck. It may be adopted and it may not be adopted. This is very much an open question. It is a mistake to assert that it is the rule.

True. As I understand it USADA feels that SOL is tolled if Lance and his buddies lied to an official investigation. The ones that come to mind

1999 Cortisone
2001 dumping of drugs and syringes
2006 UCI investigation into 1999 samples
2006 USAC investigation into 1999 samples.

regardless the perjury only idea is wrong

 

[Race Radio]

Until we know who these other eight witnesses are we don't know how strong this case is. Seems like the so called test results were also pretty weak.

This case could last for years. I was right about the Federal Investigation being closed, and I think I'm right about the USADA charges eventually being dropped or dismissed.

There are more then 8 witness. Have you seen the 2010 test results? Do you really Lance and the Feds are over?

What would be the reason for USADA to drop or dismiss the charges?

 

[webbie146]

Anyone that thinks Lance doped in 2010 is stoned..

 

[thehog]

I have to agree with Race. The Feds are going to circle back on this one. Too many unturned stones and broken victims. Much tax not paid and funny bank accounts via Switzerland to let it slide. I think it might be a little easier for Lance once dethroned to fiight a criminal investigation when he doesn't need to pretend anymore.

Sad man. Sad man.

 

[thehog]

Anyone that thinks Lance doped in 2010 is stoned..

You'd be surprised. He doesn't know how to live without it...... *Flanders* #coughcough

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I like Hellebuyck because a person who lies to an adjudicatory body should never be able to benefit from a favorable adjudication secured because of that lie.

Any kind of cheating, however, depends intrinsically upon concealment. USADA is going to have to come up with an argument that doesn't render the antidoping statute of limitations meaningless. If you stretch the concealment doctrine to its fullest extent, an antidoping official could ask each person before each race whether or not that person doped. If the person lies, then there effectively would be no limitation period.

It will be interesting to see how that issue sorts out.

Yes, but only if you stretch it. The Hellebuyck case stated what constitutes 'fraudulent concealment'.

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.