- Status
- May 13, 2009
- 1,872
- 367
- 11,180
spetsa said:
Unfortunately there's nothing to stop them from continuing to work unofficially with athletes...except for the threat of applying doping bans to the athletes themselves were they to be discovered working with the dodgy docs. But ask Pozzato what a disincentive that was...
eNinety5rpm said:
Yes, but I believe what the question was driving at is what "participating" means. ie have USADA just banned three backroom staff from competing as athletes, or does this sanction also cover acting as a trainer or similar roles.
- Aug 10, 2010
- 6,285
- 2
- 17,485
Oldman said:
Lance is trying to kill USADA, simple as that. I don't think that triggers any bias one way or another. What it does trigger, I think, is care. This case will get the fullest attention that the judge can give it. The judge will be hearing about this one for the rest of his life, and he'll want to do the best work he can. When it is done, all his friends are going to talk to him about it, and he is going to want to shine. This case will probably be appealed--and most judges hate being reversed--another reason for great care.
The utter destruction of USADA wouldn't trouble the judge for a moment, if the law called for it, but then neither would the utter demolition of "one Lawnce Ahrmstrahng." Federal judges are used to wielding truly awesome power.
Hope Solo won't complicate anything in this lawsuit (although she could benefit if Lance wins).
The sufficiency of Lance's complaint is going to be a big issue very soon. The judge wants a clean complaint that he can squarely address--and one that the Court of Appeals can squarely address. That's what the dismissal was really about.
joe_papp said:
Perhaps, but ask him now.
6 month bann and a reputation of a full fledged doper.
I don't know if he cares about either, but he got caught. Little doubt about that.
Warhawk said:
You would be surprised at how many judgements which are effectively meaningless in practice for one reason or another are handed down by courts and tribunals. The mere fact that none of these people are likely to care about being unable to compete as athletes isn't by itself reason to think that the ban applies to other things. It would depend on what USADA have the power to ban anyone from doing.
The word "participating" is ambiguous. It probably isn't ambiguous to someone who, unlike me, has some familiarity with USADA's powers. That's why I'm asking, in the hope that someone here has such familiarity.
- Mar 18, 2009
- 1,913
- 0
- 10,480
yeah, like it takes a long time to say, "I deny the charges and request a hearing."college said:
You can understand why all 5 major sports leagues and the NCAA refuse to deal with these guys
- Jul 3, 2012
- 781
- 314
- 10,680
Zinoviev Letter said:
The statement says that the rule under which they're receiving sanctions is for possession, administration, trafficking, and what's essentially an aiding & abetting provision. So, obviously they're being disciplined for providing doping to athletes. It would be completely logically incoherent to assume that the sanction for that is a prohibition from personal athletic competition only.
Back on the topic of the Armstrong lawsuit:
It occurred to me in reading through the Complaint (the one dismissed yesterday by Judge Sparks) and the Motion for TRO, along with the Declaration of Mr. Herman submitted in support of that TRO application, there are some really huge, gaping holes in the plaintiff's presentation, but one that is just too large to overlook. Forget about questions of technical rules of pleading, never mind the inflammatory rhetoric, or all of the other potential deficiencies and distractions contained in the documents. There is one very important piece of evidence that is missing in all of the plaintiff's submissions and that is this: There is no declaration from Lance Armstrong. Zip. Nada. Nil. None.
A complaint in federal court is not signed by the plaintiff under penalty of perjury (as it can be in some state courts, and thus serve the same function on a TRO application as a declaration or affidavit). In federal court, one must submit sworn declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, otherwise, the application is without any evidentiary basis.
The only declaration submitted is that of Mr. Herman. He's really not a percipient witness to anything. He's Armstrong's lawyer, nothing more and nothing less. He's not the one who should be declaring to the facts in support of the TRO, or the potential harm that Armstrong will suffer if the TRO isn't granted. Nope, that ought to be (and in any ordinary civil case would be) the plaintiff himself. In any other case, you'd see a declaration from the plaintiff setting forth the facts of the dispute, the facts entitling the plaintiff to the extraordinary equitable remedy that is a TRO, and the immediate and irreparable harm that the plaintiff will suffer if the TRO isn't granted.
But that's not here, and that's what's missing, at least in my view, from these papers.
I don't know who all of these guys are that have their names on these pleadings, but didn't anyone consider the most basic premise of all? The premise being that in order to grant the relief sought on a temporary, pendente lite, emergency basis, the judge needs evidence upon which to base a finding that a plaintitf is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order. Without evidence, all the judge has in front of him is a bunch of pieces of paper without any real foundation. .
Most of the exhibits attached to Herman's declaration are not self-effectuating documents. They really aren't a proper subject for a request for judicial notice, and without a proper foundation (i.e., a witness with personal knowledge attesting to what the documents are and how they were prepared, etc.,) they are inadmissible hearsay. Most of the documents attached consist of the same sorts of "history" of Lance's disputes with the USADA, **** Pound, etc.. By and large, these documents really don't have any proper foundation laid for their use in this case. No doubt USADA's lawyers will object to them being considered by the Court if, as and when there is a hearing.
Really, I just can't believe that on an issue this important, Lance's attorneys wouldn't have said, "Hey, Lance, we know you don't want to say anything under oath unless you have to, but this is that time. You know that rainy day you've been saving up for? Well, it's pouring."
If Judge Sparks is who we all think he is, based on all of the reports that I've read of him, he doesn't suffer foolish lawyers lightly. He also won't subscribe to the "Here it 'tis" rule of evidence --- which is a trick that sloppy lawyers use quite often, pulling a document out of their briefcases, laying it in front of a witness and just telling the court what the document says. Often, opposing lawyers are distracted and forget that there's no foundation laid for the document, and often, trial judges forget as well. Some judges say that "everything is admissible unless the other side makes a timely objection" and thus the "Here it 'tis" rule of evidence sometimes finds traction.
But I don't think that's going to be the case here. I think Judge Sparks is a guy who asks really simple, fundamental questions. "Do I have jurisdiction to hear this case?" "What evidence has been submitted that supports the plaintitff's claims and the request for extraordinary temporary injunctive relief?"
Assuming Lance's lawyers get over the hurdle that Judge Sparks set up for them yesterday, the next thing they ought to re-consider is the decision to go without any declaration from the one person who is supposed to be at the center of all of this, i.e., Lance Armstrong.
If they just re-file the Complaint without also re-filing the TRO Motion and supporting documents, I think they're probably just wasting Armstrong's money, and everyone's time.
It occurred to me in reading through the Complaint (the one dismissed yesterday by Judge Sparks) and the Motion for TRO, along with the Declaration of Mr. Herman submitted in support of that TRO application, there are some really huge, gaping holes in the plaintiff's presentation, but one that is just too large to overlook. Forget about questions of technical rules of pleading, never mind the inflammatory rhetoric, or all of the other potential deficiencies and distractions contained in the documents. There is one very important piece of evidence that is missing in all of the plaintiff's submissions and that is this: There is no declaration from Lance Armstrong. Zip. Nada. Nil. None.
A complaint in federal court is not signed by the plaintiff under penalty of perjury (as it can be in some state courts, and thus serve the same function on a TRO application as a declaration or affidavit). In federal court, one must submit sworn declarations, signed under penalty of perjury, otherwise, the application is without any evidentiary basis.
The only declaration submitted is that of Mr. Herman. He's really not a percipient witness to anything. He's Armstrong's lawyer, nothing more and nothing less. He's not the one who should be declaring to the facts in support of the TRO, or the potential harm that Armstrong will suffer if the TRO isn't granted. Nope, that ought to be (and in any ordinary civil case would be) the plaintiff himself. In any other case, you'd see a declaration from the plaintiff setting forth the facts of the dispute, the facts entitling the plaintiff to the extraordinary equitable remedy that is a TRO, and the immediate and irreparable harm that the plaintiff will suffer if the TRO isn't granted.
But that's not here, and that's what's missing, at least in my view, from these papers.
I don't know who all of these guys are that have their names on these pleadings, but didn't anyone consider the most basic premise of all? The premise being that in order to grant the relief sought on a temporary, pendente lite, emergency basis, the judge needs evidence upon which to base a finding that a plaintitf is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order. Without evidence, all the judge has in front of him is a bunch of pieces of paper without any real foundation. .
Most of the exhibits attached to Herman's declaration are not self-effectuating documents. They really aren't a proper subject for a request for judicial notice, and without a proper foundation (i.e., a witness with personal knowledge attesting to what the documents are and how they were prepared, etc.,) they are inadmissible hearsay. Most of the documents attached consist of the same sorts of "history" of Lance's disputes with the USADA, **** Pound, etc.. By and large, these documents really don't have any proper foundation laid for their use in this case. No doubt USADA's lawyers will object to them being considered by the Court if, as and when there is a hearing.
Really, I just can't believe that on an issue this important, Lance's attorneys wouldn't have said, "Hey, Lance, we know you don't want to say anything under oath unless you have to, but this is that time. You know that rainy day you've been saving up for? Well, it's pouring."
If Judge Sparks is who we all think he is, based on all of the reports that I've read of him, he doesn't suffer foolish lawyers lightly. He also won't subscribe to the "Here it 'tis" rule of evidence --- which is a trick that sloppy lawyers use quite often, pulling a document out of their briefcases, laying it in front of a witness and just telling the court what the document says. Often, opposing lawyers are distracted and forget that there's no foundation laid for the document, and often, trial judges forget as well. Some judges say that "everything is admissible unless the other side makes a timely objection" and thus the "Here it 'tis" rule of evidence sometimes finds traction.
But I don't think that's going to be the case here. I think Judge Sparks is a guy who asks really simple, fundamental questions. "Do I have jurisdiction to hear this case?" "What evidence has been submitted that supports the plaintitff's claims and the request for extraordinary temporary injunctive relief?"
Assuming Lance's lawyers get over the hurdle that Judge Sparks set up for them yesterday, the next thing they ought to re-consider is the decision to go without any declaration from the one person who is supposed to be at the center of all of this, i.e., Lance Armstrong.
If they just re-file the Complaint without also re-filing the TRO Motion and supporting documents, I think they're probably just wasting Armstrong's money, and everyone's time.
Warhawk said:
Yes!
My post was rhetorical - their reputations were already so tarnished that no serious outfit would have a formal relationship with them.
Warhawk said:
I'm not assuming that it's a ban from personal athletic competition only. I'm asking if its from personal athletic competition only, which is quite different.
What I want to know is:
A) Does the ban formally apply to non-athlete roles in WADA code affiliated sports?
B) If it does apply to backroom roles, what enforcement powers are there? It doesn't seem to me that USADA can do anything in particular to them if they breach such a ban. Can sanctions be applied to teams or athletes who engage them in backroom roles?
I genuinely don't know the answers to those questions, which is why I'm asking. And I suspect that giving a sensible answer requires some degree of expertise.
- Aug 3, 2010
- 843
- 1
- 0
Clemson Cycling said:
Maybe you can then explain to all of us why the sport of Golf chose to add themselves to the list of participating governing bodies. Let me help you, they don't want to be seen as a total joke like the above listed have become. Sure there is the fact that they were driving towards status as an Olympic sport (2016 I believe) but you don't hear any of the golf pros complaining. Quite the opposite.
)
Actually I believe cycling is far more of a joke than any of the others listed above considering they cannot even get legitimate champions for the sport's biggest crown. I think you answered your own question about golf. It is not really a size or endurance sport anyway.
thehog
BANNED
- Jul 27, 2009
- 31,285
- 2
- 22,485
QuickStepper said:
Now that I’ve read you’re summation you’re 100% correct. Now that you state this I cannot see a further motion passed. He at least has to attest in writing that he is innocent rather than using a Federal Court to “get out” of a arbitration hearing.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 36K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 41K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram