USADA - Armstrong

[Maxiton]

His strongest argument is that the USADA has acted as a "state actor" and because of that must conform to the due process provided any defendant. And this hinges to me on whether the judge will see their actions in relation to the Federal probe as somehow a continuance following the decision not to proceed, or their participation prior to that decision as being so intertwined in some way that in this instance, they have become a state actor. That would effectively end doping enforcement in the US unless the ruling (which would obviously be appealed) were extremely narrow. Here is the problem there, once it isn't a private process conducted by private statutes, it becomes an issue for courts to decide, and there are many reasons a judge would not want to set that precedent. Judges are well aware that bodies geared to specific issues (specialization) are much more adept than a federal court in determining issues within their scope. It will lead to MORE cases in federal court, the prospect of which most no judge wants to create, and several other reasons.

For that reason, I think LA is going to suffer another defeat. But again, I wouldn't actually bet real money on either position right now...but then again, I am well aware of my penchant for misreading gambling situations...so I don't bet on much of anything.

If the judge ruled that, as you say, in this instance they were behaving as state actors, how would his decision have any bearing at all on their status generally, or in other cases? In this one particular case, they have comported themselves as state actors; therefore, in this case and only this case, their role as sporting arbitrators is abrogated, and Mr. Armstrong is entitled to due process.

By getting it into open court Armstrong merely succeeds in giving himself a fighting chance, where right now he has none.

 

[TubularBills]

I think his victims will be ok with it if he goes bankrupt. They know, we know, i know: Lance can´t live the life of an "Avg. Joe". That´s like prison for him. He´ll never get over it. I sense a ending like Pantani. Only difference: I feel sorry for Pantani.

Please, lets not go there. Pantani is a tragedy of the sport, as is Armstrong - but we shouldn't stoop so low as to forecast fate on anyone.

Remember the tragedy of Vandenbroucke and Simpson. At least we can honor them as tainted saints.

Armstrong regrettably deserves the same. Though he introduces uniqueness via misguided and tainted youth, he's been a loser since birth; At least give him that.

 

[Maxiton]

Please, lets not go there. Pantani is a tragedy of the sport, as is Armstrong - but we shouldn't stoop so low as to forecast fate on anyone.

Remember the tragedy of Vandenbroucke and Simpson. At least we can honor them as tainted saints.

Armstrong regrettably deserves the same. Though he introduces uniqueness via misguided and tainted youth, he's been a loser since birth; At least give him that.

+1. My compliments all around.

 

[Oldman]

Please, lets not go there. Pantani is a tragedy of the sport, as is Armstrong - but we shouldn't stoop so low as to forecast fate on anyone.

Remember the tragedy of Vandenbroucke and Simpson. At least we can honor them as tainted saints.

Armstrong regrettably deserves the same. Though he introduces uniqueness via misguided and tainted youth, he's been a loser since birth; At least give him that.

Let's dream abit and hope he would make a serious attempt at social restitution if nothing else; not for profit, not to preserve the sociopath's version of history. That hope doesn't go for the bottom feeders that will plea out: Bruyneel, Weisel....

 

[TubularBills]

Let's dream abit and hope he would make a serious attempt at social restitution if nothing else; not for profit, not to preserve the sociopath's version of history. That hope doesn't go for the bottom feeders that will plea out: Bruyneel, Weisel....

Too true. We can only hope.

Celebrate Dope Dies Again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rTW2UzzLQ8

 

[rhubroma]

The guy shrinks from no baseness. Why doesn't he just sue the country and, if the occassion warrents, the whole world. All he knows how to do is sue, sue, sue, but refuses to defend himself against the allegations brought against him. An innocent man would have nothing to hide, but instead LA says his "rights" are being infringed upon. And what good company he's in with that argument.

 

[sniper]

funny stuff right here

I was wondering was it a subtle hint to assist USADA in finding the real dopers.

The good news is that because he didn't get a medal it wont get stripped from him.

Jeebus! Even the Bible thumpers are going after him.

The kid who got 5th has filed a Federal case and wants his 4th place #unconstitutional

As to Celaya, note in addition to what's already been said about him that he's from (near) Bilbao and was friends with Padilla. And yes, iirc he was part the original USADA briefing.

Who is this Celaya character? I don't recall his name being attached to the original USADA charging document. I thought it was only five people-Armstrong, Bruyneel, Ferrari, del Moral and Marti.

When and where did this other guys' name pop up?

 

[TubularBills]

The guy shrinks from no baseness. Why doesn't he just sue the country and, if the occassion warrents, the whole world. All he knows how to do is sue, sue, sue, but refuses to defend himself against the allegations brought against him. An innocent man would have nothing to hide, but instead LA says his "rights" are being infringed upon. And what good company he's in with that argument.

 

[Morbius]

If the judge grants an injunction for Armstrong, will it apply to Bruyneel as well, or does Bruyneel have until the 14th to respond or face a ban whatever the judge decides?

 

[TubularBills]

Remember the disallowed? Is our savior any different?

 

[TubularBills]

Los Angeles Gear. US Cycling.

http://www.lurvely.com/photo/58173553/Cod_piece/

 

[diorgen]

Los Angeles Gear. US Cycling.

http://www.lurvely.com/photo/58173553/Cod_piece/

And you posted this why?

 

[Maxiton]

Remember the disallowed? Is our savior any different?

I'll take Rasmussen any day. And look, no train!

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

If the judge grants an injunction for Armstrong, will it apply to Bruyneel as well, or does Bruyneel have until the 14th to respond or face a ban whatever the judge decides?

Since the Armstrong filing does not mention Bruyneel, I would think there would be no reason it would apply to him.

Susan

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Let's stay on the subject of LA-USADA, please. There is already a Rasmussen thread you can use.

Susan

 

[Morbius]

Since the Armstrong filing does not mention Bruyneel, I would think there would be no reason it would apply to him.

Susan

Thanks Susan. I wasn't sure if any injunction would effectively stop the whole proceedings.

It will be interesting to see if Bruyneel goes for arbitration, and whether he requests open or closed. What are Bruyneel's options, and how do they apply to Armstrong? Could Bruyneel make a a conditional response, along the lines of "I want arbitration subject to the decision in the Armstrong case"?

 

[rhubroma]

If you can't refute the accusations against you, then attack the accusor. This has been his modus operandi from the beginning.

That was appalling and grotesque enough when directed at Frankie, Betsy, Greg, Simeoni, Floyd, Tyler et al, however against USADA is merely ridiculous.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If the judge ruled that, as you say, in this instance they were behaving as state actors, how would his decision have any bearing at all on their status generally, or in other cases? In this one particular case, they have comported themselves as state actors; therefore, in this case and only this case, their role as sporting arbitrators is abrogated, and Mr. Armstrong is entitled to due process.

By getting it into open court Armstrong merely succeeds in giving himself a fighting chance, where right now he has none.

Which is why I finished that sentence with "unless the ruling was extremely narrow." Some of Mr. Armstrong's claims about them being a "state actor" deal with their funding, etc (which has already been addressed by SCOTUS...but I guess he thinks they'll take another bite at the apple because he is Cancer Jesus?). The only manner by which the court could find them uniquely a "state actor" in this case is under the idea that they actually participated in the federal probe, and thus are a state actor in this instance. That is why I wrote the post below that. On a strict application of the precedent used to determine whether a motion to dismiss is granted (the Iqbal/Twombly standard), this complaint FAILS to provide anything but conclusory statements on that point. There is nothing more there than an assertion. That being the case, that argument FAILS completely.

But it might not make it that far...I think there is plenty of reason to kick it out because the court doesn't have jurisdiction. That whole motion is smoke and mirrors, and this judge doesn't appear to like fun houses.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Since the Armstrong filing does not mention Bruyneel, I would think there would be no reason it would apply to him.

Susan

If the judge found that the USADA was acting as a state actor, it would almost certainly apply to all of the people named, including the ones who were banned yesterday. They would have to file individually regarding their individual cases, but they could use the ruling the judge made for Armstrong in their complaints because the judge would be saying that in this particular investigation, they crossed a line in the past, and anything they did to anyone during that time would be of the same character, therefore anyone subjected to their investigation would have the protection of the due process rights provided by our constitution. Thus, no sanctions would be valid if they were handed out as part of this particular investigation, nor would anyone who still had open cases be subject to the USADA's jurisdiction. They too would be entitled to whatever relief Armstrong receives.

 

[ManInFull]

I am increasingly of the opinion that he will fold, not fight

I just don't see him folding. I'm still betting that his legal team will be able to obtain a delay that pushes out the date for Lance to make a decision on accepting the charges or going into arbitration. This delay will give Lance more time to continue his PR strategy of bashing USADA and the current process.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

If the judge grants an injunction for Armstrong, will it apply to Bruyneel as well, or does Bruyneel have until the 14th to respond or face a ban whatever the judge decides?

That depends on how the order is worded. Likely not.

 

[Muriel]

Personally, I don't see how it couldn't apply to Bruyneel as well. It's the process that would be being brought into question - and that applies equally to all of the defendants, even those already sanctioned.

 

[henryg]

This judge doesn't sound like he has any patience for delaying strategies, PR games and wasting the courts time with nonsense. If they have not provided solid evidence to back up their claims I expect a similar result to the first ruling.

 

[webvan]

Agreed, that means the hammer about to fall on Dopestrong, the end of the lie at long last, thank you Floyd.

 

[Merckx index]

If the judge found that the USADA was acting as a state actor, it would almost certainly apply to all of the people named, including the ones who were banned yesterday. They would have to file individually regarding their individual cases, but they could use the ruling the judge made for Armstrong in their complaints because the judge would be saying that in this particular investigation, they crossed a line in the past, and anything they did to anyone during that time would be of the same character, therefore anyone subjected to their investigation would have the protection of the due process rights provided by our constitution. Thus, no sanctions would be valid if they were handed out as part of this particular investigation, nor would anyone who still had open cases be subject to the USADA's jurisdiction. They too would be entitled to whatever relief Armstrong receives.

Thanks for this. I had been thinking along the same lines, except I thought the doctors who were banned should have waited, requesting a hearing if necessary, to see how LA’s gambit plays out. But you are saying they had nothing to lose, because if LA actually succeeds completely in his attacks on USADA, the bans would be voided, anyway.

Having said all that, though, let's remember that even if USADA were found to be a state actor, it doesn't necessarily destroy their case against LA et al. It definitely requires them to pursue it somewhat differently. But it doesn't necessarily invalidate all the evidence they have accumulated, does it?

I am increasingly of the opinion that he will fold, not fight

Very tough call, IMHO. People keep saying he would not want all the testimony to come out, but really, at this point, how much worse can it get? I think most people who are not willfully blind were convinced when Tyler went on 60 minutes. Sure, they can call him a lying doper with no credibility, but they can also say that Hincapie et al. were forced to testify to save their careers. I question that anything that could come out can make LA look much dirtier than he already does.

Main advantage of folding, I think, is that a) he can maintain a position of above it all, saying the process is a joke, not worth his time to respond to; b) he avoids getting into a situation where he’s at risk of perjury. But if he doesn’t contest the ban, he stands to lose a lot of money. I think Betsy said he could owe as much as $12 million for the SCA case. Even for him, that is not chump change. There might be much more in connection with voiding his Tour titles, I don't know. Plus he will never be able to run the Ironmans, unless they change the rules, and if they do, it will just make him look even more like a joke.