USADA - Armstrong

[Cimacoppi49]

OK Mr. GED (certificate pending); "seems to me that usada being around with the Federal government...". I see why you believe he didn't dope. l
The reason many here don't agree with you is the amount of exposure Lance had to other amateurs and pros before he was considered a good rider.
He doped then; just not scientifically and that's where his friendship with Ferrari comes into play. But you know that.

The Grand Jury process occurs before the Grand Jury. Unless USADA was improperly in the Grand Jury room during testimony, there is no violation. Federal investigators often rely on experts outside the government service to aid in investigations. Several years ago, I and counsel to another party worked closely with the US Secret Service resulting in a 30+ count indictment being handed down. No problem at all as we never went into the Grand Jury room, nor did we speak with any witnesses post-testimony. USADA has little to be concerned about from the information I've seen.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Suppose I am a close friend of an elite athlete, he spends a lot of time over at my house. I can imagine WADA could justify coming to my house and doing a thorough search, on the grounds that I might be hiding PEDS or associated paraphernalia.

Subpoena is one thing. Search is quite another. I think you're letting your imagination run a muck.

Now if this were a criminal I was consorting with, the law would at least have to get a search warrant from a judge to allow this.

Right.

But if I understand the situation, WADA doesn’t need this kind of order to search an athlete’s house, because the athlete, in signing with some national fed, has waived this particular constitutional right.

He has, regarding his own private property, but he can't wave his friend's constitutional right to his own private property!

And if I understand this article correctly, WADA could use the same rationale to search my house.

NFW. Thank God. Not yet anyway. Thankfully our rights are not that much eroded, yet.

Certainly WADA doesn’t need a search warrant to come over to my house if the athlete is there and they want to test him, and while they are there, what’s to stop them from poking around?

Certainly they do NOT have that right. Are you saying if I let Levi Leipheimer into my house, I'm letting WADA into my house? Bull****! I never signed anything like that, and no matter what Levi signed, no way could he sign my private property rights away like that. NFW. This is fundamental, man.

That is what I find a little scary. And it gets worse. Maybe they find no PEDs, nothing relevant to doping or my friend, but find something else that incriminates me in some completely different legal situation. They have obtained this evidence by means that would ordinarily not be allowed. But it seems that they might be allowed from a WADA search.

You're way out in the tules now.

If I have misinterpreted/exaggerated the situation, someone call me on it. But even if I have, I think it’s fair to say that this is a very plausible future scenario.

Call!

 

[Cimacoppi49]

In a typical AAA arbitration, if the arbitrators agree to it, both parties can depose the other parties' witnesses. However, it's not a matter of right like in court proceedings.

With USADA, it's my understanding that USADA would eventually have to provide the statements to the other side. But not as early as it would have to under court proceedings. Statements are also generally not admissible in a court of law unless it falls under an exception to the hearsay rule. However, in arbitration proceedings, the rules of evidence are very ... flexible.

You are correct. Hearsay is admissible for whatever it may be worth.

 

[Poursuivant]

I have a question - what has changed for Armstrong since that interview he did last month where he said he wasnt going to "fight" any USADA claim?

Old habits?

 

[Warhawk]

You might want to actually read the act. For example:


9 USC § 7 - Witnesses before arbitrators; fees; compelling attendance

The arbitrators selected either as prescribed in this title or otherwise, or a majority of them, may summon in writing any person to attend before them or any of them as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book, record, document, or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case. The fees for such attendance shall be the same as the fees of witnesses before masters of the United States courts. Said summons shall issue in the name of the arbitrator or arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be signed by the arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be directed to the said person and shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas to appear and testify before the court; if any person or persons so summoned to testify shall refuse or neglect to obey said summons, upon petition the United States district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting may compel the attendance of such person or persons before said arbitrator or arbitrators, or punish said person or persons for contempt in the same manner provided by law for securing the attendance of witnesses or their punishment for neglect or refusal to attend in the courts of the United States.

Whilst the parties have wide latitude to contract for the arbitration as they see fit, as a practical matter, the vast majority of arbitration hearings are brought pursuant the the rules and under the jurisdiction of the AAA.

You are correct. Hearsay is admissible for whatever it may be worth.

What he said wasn't really much different than what I said, except that I'm not that familiar with AAA procedure. And I don't think I was disagreeing with you there anyway. My point in posting that was in regards to 9 USC 5, which begins "If in the agreement provision be made for a method of naming or appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire, such method shall be followed . . ." and then essentially states that, if that's not the case, the court can appoint an arbitrator. The question I was responding to was whether the arbitration in this case falls under the Federal Arbitration Act, and obviously, the answer is "yes."

 

[Berzin]

They've beyond lost it over on Slowtwitch. Here is a sticky that illustrates the point-

Let's please have some perspective here people. I get that people may - for a wide range of reasons - harbor some animosity or think poorly of USADA. But please, let's not have any more posts where the slope of the line for Goodwin's law is infinite.

In case that wasn't clear, don't make any posts about USADA where you reference the Nazis in the title.

USADA is trying to deprive a guy of 7 Tour de France titles. The Nazis deprived (roughly) 7 *MILLION* Jews of their LIVES.

Have some goddam respect and perspective.

That's all.

 

[MacRoadie]

I have a question - what has changed for Armstrong since that interview he did last month where he said he wasnt going to "fight" any USADA claim?

Old habits?

Nothing has changed at all. Business as usual.

 

[Elagabalus]

... I can imagine WADA could justify coming to my house and doing a thorough search, on the grounds that I might be hiding PEDS or associated paraphernalia....

You can? WADA has no jurisdiction whatsoever on your property. They could not come over and start "poking around". The could ask you for your permission to do a search but if you said "no" they are SOL. Even if they knew you were "harboring or otherwise aiding and abetting an athlete" they would have to wait until the athlete left your premises. You also could call the police and have them forcibly removed if they failed to leave.

The Police can't even search your car unless you give them permission so it's hard to see how WADA would have powers above that.

 

[Warhawk]

The Police can't even search your car unless you give them permission so it's hard to see how WADA would have powers above that.

Well... actually... I don't want to go through the details, but there's plenty of exceptions to that.

 

[Elagabalus]

Well... actually... I don't want to go through the details, but there's plenty of exceptions to that.

Yeah ... I know, but I didn't want to get into either.

 

[Warhawk]

Yeah ... I know, but I didn't want to get into either.

Fair enough, just didn't want anyone to get the wrong idea and tell the cop who pulled them over because their car is billowing marijuana smoke that the cop totally can't search the car without his consent, because he, like, read it on the internet, man.

 

[Armanius]

I don't believe WADA or USADA can do a search of a non-party's home. In criminal cases, probable cause is needed. In civil cases, subpoenas can be issued to a non-party to produce documents, but there is no tool to go search someone's house for those documents.

 

[Merckx index]

You're way out in the tules now.

WADA has no jurisdiction whatsoever on your property. They could not come over and start "poking around". The could ask you for your permission to do a search but if you said "no" they are SOL. Even if they knew you were "harboring or otherwise aiding and abetting an athlete" they would have to wait until the athlete left your premises. You also could call the police and have them forcibly removed if they failed to leave.

OK, but suppose we’re roommates, live together in some relationship. They can come into the house without my permission, can’t they, to search for something pertaining to him? The point I’m trying to make is that they don’t need a search warrant to enter his property, so inevitably innocent people may get caught up in this.

Again, if you’re living with a criminal, at least they have to have a search warrant, and probably you should know that your roommate is a criminal. But if you are living with an athlete, neither he nor you is doing anything illegal, yet without a search warrant they can come into a house that is partly your property. Once in there, they aren’t going to distinguish his stuff from yours.

 

[MacRoadie]

OK, but suppose we’re roommates, live together in some relationship. They can come into the house without my permission, can’t they, to search for something pertaining to him? The point I’m trying to make is that they don’t need a search warrant to enter his property, so inevitably innocent people may get caught up in this.

Again, if you’re living with a criminal, at least they have to have a search warrant, and probably you should know that your roommate is a criminal. But if you are living with an athlete, neither he nor you is doing anything illegal, yet without a search warrant they can come into a house that is partly your property. Once in there, they aren’t going to distinguish his stuff from yours.

They can't come in to anyone's house, searching for anything. Ever.

 

[PedalPusher]

So Lance is going to fight the process by trying to show that USADA is acting as a government entity while not providing athletes with rights mandated under the US Constitution. IMHO, there's nothing outrageous in that claim...

My question is what happens to the evidence and testimony?

it's pretty outrageous, first, it's a long stretch, already disregarded by the courts. Second, this is a civil matter, and the constitutional protections he is crying about (5th amendment) only apply in CRIMINAL cases.

 

[MacRoadie]

Clearly, the disinformation campaign is having some effect...

 

[Warhawk]

OK, but suppose we’re roommates, live together in some relationship. They can come into the house without my permission, can’t they, to search for something pertaining to him? The point I’m trying to make is that they don’t need a search warrant to enter his property, so inevitably innocent people may get caught up in this.

Again, if you’re living with a criminal, at least they have to have a search warrant, and probably you should know that your roommate is a criminal. But if you are living with an athlete, neither he nor you is doing anything illegal, yet without a search warrant they can come into a house that is partly your property. Once in there, they aren’t going to distinguish his stuff from yours.

Not WADA. I'm reasonably certain they don't have the authority to conduct a search like that.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Okay, I read the whole article. Highly recommended. Seems well-informed. Here's the conclusion:

USADA acts like government, works with government, has harnessed the powers of government, and yet it’s a private corporation.

This was the point of section c that I quoted yesterday...and as I said then, there seems to be a point worth the courts time there as much as I hate to admit it.

If you want to work, you have to agree to the code. And by agreeing to the code and USADA’s authority, you tacitly agree to waive certain rights promised to you under the Constitution, like the fourth amendment (which spells out your right to be secure in your person and to be protected from searches and seizures without probable cause) and the sixth (your right to be confronted with witnesses and have access to evidence used against you).

And if this guy wants to do some case law research, he will find many cases that say that process is perfectly fine. Many employment contracts contain things like that...and courts have upheld them. USA cycling and the USADA are doing nothing unusual (contrary to his implication) here. He sure wrote a lot of words to have missed something like that.

The Senate never imagined such a thing and USADA faces a problem doing it.

****, if you're going to go after things the Senate never envisioned, why start with that?

rewarding snitches

In poker, that's called a "tell."

How has USADA avoided being seen as a “state actor”?
Basically—and I’m not joking—by saying it isn’t.

That's a lie. They are relying on precedent.

Two-thirds of USADA’s revenue, $10 million in 2010, comes from grants issued by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

SCOTUS has already addressed the funding issue...again with the sloppy reporting.

Is that how USADA got the evidence against Armstrong this time—from the federal investigation?
Nobody really knows.

Actually, they do. He is just engaging in the same kind of dialogue you will find here: Speculation. I thought journalists were supposed to be a little more certain of their assertions than applying the standards of internet forums, but as Jon Stewart always points out, the state of the American media is appalling.

But imagine that this isn’t about Armstrong, or even about athletes. Suppose your homeowners’ association suspects somebody in the development is dealing drugs.

Okay, he really went off the reservation here. Um, Mr. Alexander, your comparison is so stupid, that I don't think it deserves anything other than that short characterization.

Even if you are a Lance hater, and it pains you to think that he doped and might get away with it, you might want to pull for him this time.

Uh....no...

 

[MacRoadie]

Next thing you know, the Armstrong camp will be blaming USADA for the Branch Davidian Camp raid...

Yesterday Waco, today Austin, tomorrow Anytown, USA.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

They've beyond lost it over on Slowtwitch. Here is a sticky that illustrates the point-

Let's please have some perspective here people. I get that people may - for a wide range of reasons - harbor some animosity or think poorly of USADA. But please, let's not have any more posts where the slope of the line for Goodwin's law is infinite.

In case that wasn't clear, don't make any posts about USADA where you reference the Nazis in the title.

USADA is trying to deprive a guy of 7 Tour de France titles. The Nazis deprived (roughly) 7 *MILLION* Jews of their LIVES.

Have some goddam respect and perspective.

That's all.

Lolzzz ..i would love to go over there but i am banned.

 

[Topangarider]

Next thing you know, the Armstrong camp will be blaming USADA for the Branch Davidian Camp raid...

Yesterday Waco, today Austin, tomorrow Anytown, America.

Lance uses too much water on his TX compound. It would never burn like that

 

[MarkvW]

As a scientist who followed the case closely, I came to my own conclusions.



I think the problem is that while USADA can subpoena witnesses, the defendant athletes can’t necessarily depose and cross-examine these same witnesses. They are not allowed the same access to them that USADA has. Thus an example that keeps coming up is that USADA could take a statement from a witness, then not make that witness available in court.

But consider another scenario:

Suppose I am a close friend of an elite athlete, he spends a lot of time over at my house. I can imagine WADA could justify coming to my house and doing a thorough search, on the grounds that I might be hiding PEDS or associated paraphernalia. Now if this were a criminal I was consorting with, the law would at least have to get a search warrant from a judge to allow this. But if I understand the situation, WADA doesn’t need this kind of order to search an athlete’s house, because the athlete, in signing with some national fed, has waived this particular constitutional right. And if I understand this article correctly, WADA could use the same rationale to search my house. Certainly WADA doesn’t need a search warrant to come over to my house if the athlete is there and they want to test him, and while they are there, what’s to stop them from poking around?

That is what I find a little scary. And it gets worse. Maybe they find no PEDs, nothing relevant to doping or my friend, but find something else that incriminates me in some completely different legal situation. They have obtained this evidence by means that would ordinarily not be allowed. But it seems that they might be allowed from a WADA search.

If I have misinterpreted/exaggerated the situation, someone call me on it. But even if I have, I think it’s fair to say that this is a very plausible future scenario.

A contract between A and B establishes the "private law" only between those two people. The USA Cycling licensing scheme is a separate private bargain between USA Cycling and each individual licensee. That's it! Nobody else is "in on the bargain" unless they also join in the contract.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Here's a general legal question for the lawyers and law students on this list.

In a civil case between Party A and Party B, and either party compel Party C to testify as a witness?

I mean, if my neighbor cuts his tree down and it falls on my house, and I know my neighbor across the street witnessed the whole thing, if that neighbor is unwilling to testify, in my suit against my neighbor do I have any legal recourse to require the witness neighbor to testify? Can I get the court to subpoena him?

My point:
If an ordinary citizen can't get a witness subpoenaed in a civil case, then I agree the USADA should not have such powers either.
But if he can, then I don't see why the USADA should not also have such powers.

Federal judges are appointed for life. Of course that doesn't mean they are not susceptible to corruption (and ideology), but at least, it's not as easy as donating $$$$ for election campaign.

Nailed it.

 

[MacRoadie]

Lance uses too much water on his TX compound. It would never burn like that

Don't underestimate his seething rage...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Here's a general legal question for the lawyers and law students on this list.

In a civil case between Party A and Party B, and either party compel Party C to testify as a witness?

I mean, if my neighbor cuts his tree down and it falls on my house, and I know my neighbor across the street witnessed the whole thing, if that neighbor is unwilling to testify, in my suit against my neighbor do I have any legal recourse to require the witness neighbor to testify? Can I get the court to subpoena him?

My point:
If an ordinary citizen can't get a witness subpoenaed in a civil case, then I agree the USADA should not have such powers either.
But if he can, then I don't see why the USADA should not also have such powers.

In a civil case, a private party can ask for subpoenas to be issued to compel a non-party to testify (before a court or in a deposition). You still need to serve the party with the subpoena. If the non-party witness ducks the service, then you are out of luck.

Nailed it.