USADA - Armstrong

[Square-pedaller]

It's always a risk, but I think Tygart has taken away Lance's big PR weapon.
He can't go around crying about the USADA not being fair, or having a vendetta, etc. Tygart is on solid footing and he knows it. What's another 30 days?

Won't LA spin it that USADA have had to back down because they know they were going to lose, but that they still haven't taken away teh fundamental unfairness?

 

[Merckx index]

So what exactly does LA do in these 30 days? He tries to convince another court that USADA is a state actor? Or that UCI has jurisdiction? Can matters like these really be settled in thirty days? I would have thought it would take longer than that just to get on the court’s schedule.

Can some lawyer here brief us on the procedures or motions that LA now goes through?

 

[Anonymous]

So what exactly does LA do in these 30 days? He tries to convince another court that USADA is a state actor? Or that UCI has jurisdiction? Can matters like these really be settled in thirty days? I would have thought it would take longer than that just to get on the court’s schedule.

Can some lawyer here brief us on the procedures or motions that LA now goes through?

Probably all that will happen is LA will pay his lawyers another coupla hundred thou to discover he's screwed.

 

[thehog]

if USADA knew that, why grant the extension? why save the judge embarrassment? there is no fair play price at stake here, is there?

I don't like the extension. Suggests they're cutting deals instead of throwing the truth on the table.

You missed my point. The judge was saving Armstrong embarrassment and suggested to his council to seek a 30 day extension from USADA rather than denying his injunction application. It’s in the courts interest to make arbitration work.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Armstrong is still pursuing his case in a Federal Court. They’ve given him 30 days to do so. All that’s been withdrawn is the “injunction”. USADA knows he’ll lose but being an arbitration they should “appear” that they are working to reach a settlement decision. Giving 30 days is the right thing to do – it doesn’t change much. Just delays the enviable. Armstrong can hardly claim that there’s “no process” when they’ve provided an extension.

I would also suggest the injunction was about to be denied again and the judge to save embarrassment suggested “in camera” to withdraw the claim and seek an extension with USADA.

The unknown is whether or not Sparks conferenced the case with the parties which often happens with a TRO request. I'll wager that he did. Assuming the judge did speak with the parties, likely on a conference call, he may have told Herman he was not going to grant a TRO, but that he would consider Armstrong's arguments. To take pressure off the judge, he may have asked that USADA give Armstrong a 30 day extension and allowed Herman to save some face by withdrawing his TRO request. This would also give USADA the opportunity to file an answer to the complaint and move for dismissal. Without the request for injunctive relief, this is just another complaint filed commencing a civil case. Look for an answer and motion to dismiss to be filed within the next 20 days giveing Sparks ten days to decide the motion. IMO, this will be fully back in USADA's system by Friday 8/17 with the new deadline bein Monday 8/20.

IMO, USADA is looking very good at this point. I also have to think Sparks has cautioned both parties to not attempt to try the case in the media.

 

[Topangarider]

if USADA knew that, why grant the extension? why save the judge embarrassment? there is no fair play price at stake here, is there?

I don't like the extension. Suggests they're cutting deals instead of throwing the truth on the table.

How do we know a federal judge was about to dismiss the second plea from team LA? Seems that legal experts agree that was likely but nobody knows for sure what the judge was going to do.

Not sure that USADA has anything to lose here by granting the extension. USAD remains confident that they have the authority to bring these charges and pursue arbitration with LA. More time is not going to strengthen Team LA's case. In fact, less haste and more consideration of the legal issues/precedents will probably just help USADA. There would be downside - at least in terms of PR - if the TX judge issued a stay (even a temporary one) so that all of the arguments that team LA threw at him could be considered.

Lance has known the USADA case was in the works for a long time. True, he may not have known the extent of the charges or how the charging of multiple co-conspirators could impact dynamics of the case, but an extra 30 days is not going to increase his legal fire power or arsenal.

Granting an extension makes USADA look reasonable and fair. Remember that they have been waiting and patient for a long time to bring this case. Justice is a slow process.

 

[BYOP88]

Probably all that will happen is LA will pay his lawyers another coupla hundred thou to discover he's screwed.

Here's hoping.

 

[sniper]

You missed my point. The judge was saving Armstrong embarrassment and suggested to his council to seek a 30 day extension from USADA rather than denying his injunction application. It’s in the courts interest to make arbitration work.

ah, ok, thanks for clarifying.
in that case: interesting point!

Lance has known the USADA case was in the works for a long time. True, he may not have known the extent of the charges or how the charging of multiple co-conspirators could impact dynamics of the case, but an extra 30 days is not going to increase his legal fire power or arsenal.

Granting an extension makes USADA look reasonable and fair. Remember that they have been waiting and patient for a long time to bring this case. Justice is a slow process.

you're right in pointing this out.

 

[Topangarider]

The unknown is whether or not Sparks conferenced the case with the parties which often happens with a TRO request. I'll wager that he did. Assuming the judge did speak with the parties, likely on a conference call, he may have told Herman he was not going to grant a TRO, but that he would consider Armstrong's arguments. To take pressure off the judge, he may have asked that USADA give Armstrong a 30 day extension and allowed Herman to save some face by withdrawing his TRO request. This would also give USADA the opportunity to file an answer to the complaint and move for dismissal. Without the request for injunctive relief, this is just another complaint filed commencing a civil case. Look for an answer and motion to dismiss to be filed within the next 20 days giveing Sparks ten days to decide the motion. IMO, this will be fully back in USADA's system by Friday 8/17 with the new deadline bein Monday 8/20.

IMO, USADA is looking very good at this point. I also have to think Sparks has cautioned both parties to not attempt to try the case in the media.

+1 (and thanks for insight re possible conferencing of the case with the lawyers)

 

[PedalPusher]

The unknown is whether or not Sparks conferenced the case with the parties which often happens with a TRO request. I'll wager that he did. Assuming the judge did speak with the parties, likely on a conference call, he may have told Herman he was not going to grant a TRO, but that he would consider Armstrong's arguments. To take pressure off the judge, he may have asked that USADA give Armstrong a 30 day extension and allowed Herman to save some face by withdrawing his TRO request. This would also give USADA the opportunity to file an answer to the complaint and move for dismissal. Without the request for injunctive relief, this is just another complaint filed commencing a civil case. Look for an answer and motion to dismiss to be filed within the next 20 days giveing Sparks ten days to decide the motion. IMO, this will be fully back in USADA's system by Friday 8/17 with the new deadline bein Monday 8/20.

IMO, USADA is looking very good at this point. I also have to think Sparks has cautioned both parties to not attempt to try the case in the media.

Could not have said it better myself! +1

 

[Cimacoppi49]

The thirty day extension gives Paddy McQuade the opportunity to think before he speaks again making himself look like the total fool that he is.

 

[MarkvW]

More

USADA is responsible for the results management aspect of drug testing for athletes that fall under their jurisdiction. Results management includes communicating the results of drug tests with athletes as well as the adjudication of athletes suspected of committing an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), which can be the result of a positive drug test, as well as other methods including all forms of credible evidence. According to the Code, an ADRV consists of the following:

The presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample. (positive test)

Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification as authorized in applicable anti-doping rules or otherwise evading sample collection.

Violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for Out-of-Competition Testing including failure to file required whereabouts information and missed tests which are declared based on rules which comply with the International Standard for Testing. Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures within an eighteen-month period as determined by anti-doping organizations with jurisdiction over the Athlete shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation. Click here for more information on whereabouts.

Tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control.

Possession of prohibited substances and prohibited methods.

Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any attempted anti-doping rule violation.

When evidence meeting one or more of the above violations is found, an independent anti-doping review board will make the recommendation whether USADA can move forward with sanctions on an athlete. Athletes can either accept or challenge the sanction through an established legal process. In the United States athletes can take a case before an arbitration panel with a final appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.


Soooooo, when you look at the above post and the rest of the information in this..... claiming USADA has no jurisdiction is like saying Vegas has no prostitutes

I'm not talking about jurisdiction. It is obvious to me that USADA has jurisiction. I'm talking about EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over Olympic Movement amateur sports conferred by the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act on the USOC.

Can USAC claim any of that exclusive jurisdiction goodness for itself in this case? USADA in this case is no more than an agent of USAC. Is USAC's antidoping program under the USOC's amateur sports Olympic Movement umbrella? If it is, then the Lance's case will die a quick death. If it isn't, then this case is just an arbitration agreement that an unhappy person is trying to void.

Any precedent the Trevor Graham case has depends on this exclusive jurisdiction argument. In the Graham case, the USOC directly contracted with USADA for the provision of antidoping services. Graham's antidoping process thus easily came under the exclusive immunity umbrella of the USOC.

Here we have USAC (which does come under the olympic amateur sport umbrella) contracting with USADA for testing a PRO cyclist not competing in an amateur sporting event. I don't know the answer here, but any application of Ted Stevens to this case is far from obvious.

My earlier statement that Lance is trying to kill USADA is overbroad. Lance is only trying to kill USAC's antidoping process for pro cycling.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The unknown is whether or not Sparks conferenced the case with the parties which often happens with a TRO request. I'll wager that he did. Assuming the judge did speak with the parties, likely on a conference call, he may have told Herman he was not going to grant a TRO, but that he would consider Armstrong's arguments. To take pressure off the judge, he may have asked that USADA give Armstrong a 30 day extension and allowed Herman to save some face by withdrawing his TRO request. This would also give USADA the opportunity to file an answer to the complaint and move for dismissal. Without the request for injunctive relief, this is just another complaint filed commencing a civil case. Look for an answer and motion to dismiss to be filed within the next 20 days giveing Sparks ten days to decide the motion. IMO, this will be fully back in USADA's system by Friday 8/17 with the new deadline bein Monday 8/20.

IMO, USADA is looking very good at this point. I also have to think Sparks has cautioned both parties to not attempt to try the case in the media.

Thank you for the legal insight Cima....
Some of us are holding our breath and this is a great chunk of positive info to read.

 

[college]

Someone explained yesterday that while the actual Grand Jury proceedings at which the Grand Jury is present are secret and closed to all those except those that are officially authorized, that does not apply to interrogations leading up to that.

I presume if all involved parties don't object to a third party present at such an interrogation, there should be no problem, certainly not a criminal problem. Why do you think there is, or might be?

What happens if only one of the multiple witnesses claim that they were intimidated into giving testimony? Intimidated by having the Fed’s along with usada after them?

 

[MarkvW]

Smart move by Herman. He was gonna get kicked in the balls again and he knew it.

Smart by USADA too. Takes away LA's argument that they are not being "fair."

And they will still win, so there's exactly no rush.

The 30 days gives USADA time to prepare for the injunction. It deprives Lance of the opportunity to short-set a motion by claiming an emergency.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

What happens if only one of the multiple witnesses claim that they were intimidated into giving testimony? Intimidated by having the Fed’s along with usada after them?

The only ones who were intimidated are the Andreus, Tyler, Floyd, Bassons, Lemond, Simeoni, and many more... all by Pharmstrong. So please don´t try to twist reality. Thanks.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

What happens if only one of the multiple witnesses claim that they were intimidated into giving testimony? Intimidated by having the Fed’s along with usada after them?

The straws you are clutching at are VERY fragile..... you will go down with the LA Steam-boat crew!

 

[Maxiton]

I can't be bothered to read this right now, but it looks like it might be of interest.

"Lance Armstrong: Victim? The embattled cyclist says USADA is out to get him—using powers that it really shouldn’t have. Brian Alexander says he’s right."

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

 

[Catwhoorg]

Is the extension JUST for Lance, does Brunyeel have to stick with the original one ?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I don't like the extension either. It might suggest that there was something unfair about the original timeline + the standard 5 day extension, thus opening the door to speculation about the unfairness of the entire process.

Anyway, I don't understand what the 30 days buys for either side with respect to the USADA process itself. Until the deadline is reached, we don't know if Armstrong requests a hearing or not. Until he indicates whether he wants the hearing, the USADA is not going to start the hearing process.

I suppose he can anticipate what their evidence/testimony will be, and prepare to respond to that. But, realistically, what he can produce to disprove what George et. al. have to say?

I think it's just a delaying tactic hoping some miracle occurs. I don't understand why the USADA granted this.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I can't be bothered to read this right now, but it looks like it might be of interest.

"Lance Armstrong: Victim? The embattled cyclist says USADA is out to get him—using powers that it really shouldn’t have. Brian Alexander says he’s right."

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

Linked and discussed yesterday.

 

[egtalbot]

It was guys like Pantani that brought the sport into the EPO era and planted the initial seeds of the dark generation.

Forgetting your main argument that everyone's making Lance a scapegoat, who exactly were the guys "like Pantani" that brought EPO into the sport?

The sport (as beautiful as it is) has been dirty for many decades. It got more organized after EPO arrived circa 1989, but your comment here suggests some level of deceiving yourself about this whole thing.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Is the extension JUST for Lance, does Brunyeel have to stick with the original one ?

Just Armstrong.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What happens if only one of the multiple witnesses claim that they were intimidated into giving testimony? Intimidated by having the Fed’s along with usada after them?

Define "intimidated".

I mean, it's one (wrong) kind of intimidation if someone is sitting there who has made clear to the witness that if he doesn't say X, which is untrue, then they will behead every member of his family.

But I have no problem with "intimidation" of the kind where they're saying that if the reluctant witness begrudgingly admits to X, which is true, then they'll, for example, agree to not file charges against the witness.

 

[Oldman]

Probably all that will happen is LA will pay his lawyers another coupla hundred thou to discover he's screwed.

What will really bother him is the lack of the Happy Ending he'd usually get at the Rose.