USADA - Armstrong

[FitSsikS]

Not so sure Lance would go on Oprah. She doesn't look at all like his mother.

Like a photo negative viewed through a sideshow mirror.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Quick Stepper,

First of all, thanks for your analysis as it further proves that they aren't interested in getting a TRO, they are only interested in the press release they got by applying for it.

However I disagree on his lawyers encouraging Lance to perjure himself. I'm sure His Arrogance has no reservations about perjuring himself, but his lawyers have strictly advised against it. I believe they could be disbarred if they are found to have encouraged a client to commit perjury. I would imagine they advised against filing this motion because they probably knew it would have no legal impact, but were told that it was "their jobs" to do it, and they complied on the grounds that it didn't include any perjurious statements.

He has built his life on perjury. What's a little more?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

They have lifetime bans from what?

The fuse is burning CC, the fuse is burning to the powder keg on that ship, don't be the last passenger off...(I was thinking of writing the name of a rodent instead, but I am in a pretty good mood today.)

 

[MarkvW]

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.

They may read your analysis and fix the problem. Congratulations on spotting a real and correctible vulnerability!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This usada life time ban for the doctors just proves the point that Lance is trying to make. It is a kangaroo court.

Have I ever mentioned how much I like kangaroos? Cool animal that kangaroo. Hoppy hoppity hop!!! And those pouches!!!! Man...

 

[alberto.legstrong]

The fuse is burning CC, the fuse is burning to the powder keg on that ship, don't be the last passenger off...(I was thinking of writing the name of a rodent instead, but I am in a pretty good mood today.)

144 pc Cases of yellow bracelets on ebay, but it now for $2.99 with free shipping. 0 bids.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

For Del Moral and Ferrari the ban is free publicity.

It'll be on their business cards tomorrow, and should increase revenue 3.4%...that's not small number for them...

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, but it isn't. Just because you don't understand the rules of a sanctioning body doesn't mean it is a "kangaroo court". Marion Jones said the same thing, ask her how that went.

Lance can go to arbitration, he gets to agree to the arbitrator, he can present his own evidence. Lance agreed to these rules, his own manager wrote them! Now he wants to move the goalpost because he thought he controlled everyone...lol....he's DONE.

Armstrong picks one arbitrator from the approved list; USADA does the same; those two select a third arbiter from the list.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You can understand why all 5 major sports leagues and the NCAA refuse to deal with these guys

Yea, because all of those you refer to are cesspools of doping...

 

[MacRoadie]

You can understand why all 5 major sports leagues and the NCAA refuse to deal with these guys

Two words: "Players Unions"


Athletes deciding who tests them, when, and for what. Also known as the fox watching the henhouse...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

Thanks for admitting that Lance is not a legitimate champion. It's the little steps that count...

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Right, to get an extension you have to ask for one, as Armstrong did. Apparently so did Bruyneel and Lezama, or they already asked for a hearing. But these three did not respond with a request for a hearing or an extension by the deadline, so the hammer already came down on them.

This is obviously what will happen to the other three if they don't ask for a hearing. But Armstrong has already conceded that the same will result for him even with a hearing, because it's a "kangaroo court" and he can't compel (unidentified) witnesses to testify.

Not quite true. The arbiters can issue a subpoena to be served pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and/or state arbitration provisions such as a NY Article 75 proceeding, IIRC.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

It'll be on their business cards tomorrow, and should increase revenue 3.4%...that's not small number for them...

I think working with banned doctors is guaranteed to raise your cadence. It's a scientific fact. You can't buy this kind of publicity.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I stand by my prediction from yesterday: Armstrong will not refile. They've got no grounds.

Bet ya a case of Shiner he refiles.

 

[alberto.legstrong]

Thanks for admitting that Lance is not a legitimate champion. It's the little steps that count...

His name is clemson cycling, he is posting on a cycling message board and he thinks cycling is a joke.

I think I am going to go to a needlpoint messageboard, call myself Nelson the Needler, rant and rave about needlepoint for a couple days and then say what a joke I think needlepoint is.

And I thought engaging on a messageboard that I was actually interested in was a terrible waste of my time.... well, perhaps someone is paying him to troll for Lance. Wasn't that one of his media companies?

 

[veganrob]

Not quite true. The arbiters can issue a subpoena to be served pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act and/or state arbitration provisions such as a NY Article 75 proceeding, IIRC.

Can three doctors be called to testify against Lance at hearing or would that only be for court? Thanks

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Can three doctors be called to testify against Lance at hearing or would that only be for court? Thanks

As I understand it, USADA has no power to compel any of the three to give evidence. They could however call them as witnesses if they voluntarily decided to go. I suspect that the latter option is extremely unlikely.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Can three doctors be called to testify against Lance at hearing or would that only be for court? Thanks

The problem with any civil subpoena is that these doctors are foreign nationals not residing in the US.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

As I understand it, USADA has no power to compel any of the three to give evidence. They could however call them as witnesses if they voluntarily decided to go. I suspect that the latter option is extremely unlikely.

I don't think any of these guys are part of the USADA's minyan.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

They may read your analysis and fix the problem. Congratulations on spotting a real and correctible vulnerability!

How is it correctable? Lance has to certify that he is or is about to be unjustly harmed by what the USADA is about to do. The harm is easy enough to show and assert. But the unjustly part is the conundrum. He has to convince the judge that the USADA process, to which he agreed and praised, is legally illegitimate; unconstitutional. Only way to get there rests on the whole USADA-is-a-"state actor" argument. But even then that argument seems premature - since they haven't acted yet. What's he going to do, argue that once they act (ban him) - that harm is irreparable? Why? He's retired from cycling, and he's not earning a livelihood from triathlons.

Maybe he's just trying to scare the USADA - warning them he will sue them for damages once they find him in violation?

 

[DomesticDomestique]

http://www.businessinsider.com/lanc...-he-is-certain-to-lose-his-doping-case-2012-7

Business Insider running a little behind the clinic this morning. Pretty sure this is what me 95RPM and QuickStepper have been saying.

 

[Catwhoorg]

More importantly, can they use their confession as part of any hearing ?

 

[webvan]

That's an assumption. Either they didn't respond, or they responded saying they accept the charges. The former is much more likely than the latter, but it really doesn't matter which it was.

What we know is that they did not respond with a request for an extension or a denial of the charges and a request for a hearing.

Right, I think the letter would have been a bit clearer if that had been stated though.

 

[MacRoadie]

More importantly, can they use their confession as part of any hearing ?

There has been no indication that they said anything, and it's highly unlikely that they did.

 

[Anonymous]

http://www.businessinsider.com/lanc...-he-is-certain-to-lose-his-doping-case-2012-7

Business Insider running a little behind the clinic this morning. Pretty sure this is what me 95RPM and QuickStepper have been saying.

Lance Armstrong's Lawyer Says He Is "Certain To Lose" His Doping Case

Not surprisingly, this startling admission was not supported by the concession that Armstrong would lose because the evidence that the USADA has amassed against him is irrefutable.

Now they will shape their PR for the fallout.

This is over. Lance is done.