USADA - Armstrong

[MacRoadie]

This small echo chamber would become almost empty if all the claims and assertions were required to have a link.

You sure do spend a lot of time screaming at the top of your lungs in this "small echo chamber".

 

[patricknd]

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?

If usada were to try and come into my house looking for information or evidence to incriminate a friend of mine then I would tell them to get lost. Maybe not in those specific words because I would use some other more appropriate curse words but I think it would get the point across. Just because someone is friends with a athlete does not give usada the rights of subpoena power (or it should not in my opinion). If usada does have that power then it should be taken away by the courts.

don't let 'em shake you college, i think it's commendable to stand by a friend

 

[mr. tibbs]

I wish that I was paid money every time someone has become or taken this personally with insults directed at me. Please do not do this. It makes the arguments worth less. Also I have seen more than once where someone try's to pin either names or nicnames to me. Why?
Usada has granted an extension and have they given a proper reason for the extension? You know like a media release where they explain that the feel sorry for Lance and that they will in the spirit of transparency and fairness allow Lance time to give his answer to arbitration or not?

I can give an answer right now: "Yes, Mr. Armstrong wants to move to arbitration." Or maybe I could say "no, thanks."

Man, Armstrong should just hire me to reply. I'm apparently a natural. In two seconds, I've done what a crisis room of highly paid professional lawyers can't figure out.

 

[Armanius]

Assuming Armstrong is a doper, if I were Armstrong, I'd put USADA to the test by offering to snitch on every single rider who's ever doped in exchange for full immunity. I'd love to see whether or not USADA would take the deal. Although I don't think Armstrong would ever admit to anything.

 

[DomesticDomestique]

I think this 30 day extension is the harbinger of a settlement between USADA and Armstrong. Here's why:

Armstrong can't win, but he has shown a willingness to try to get the USADA declared a state actor. There is a real chance that the USADA could be declared a state actor. That wouldn't help Armstrong much, because the case against him (primarily witness testimony) is presumably pretty strong, and a few constitutional protections won't change the verdict. But it would harm the USADA considerably in its general fight against doping. The USADA may well decide that it is better to settle with, say, one or two seasons taken away, and thus avoid the risk of being declared a state actor.

Armstrong is one of the few potential defendants who have the financial ability and motivation to pursue this sort of strategy. If USADA settles with Armstrong, they probably won't face a similar threat for quite some time.

There is very little reason to believe they will be declared a state actor. There is no legal foundation, as in a law or federal court ruling, in Armstrong's case to reach that conclusion. And there is a substantial amount of foundation to support the fact that they are not a state actor. Judges also will not want to create the enormous slippery slope that would be created by ruling that they are a state actor. Think of it this way, assume judge Sparks agrees with Lance and rules that USADA is a state actor, his ruling is going to have to contain some justification. Right now that justification, provided by Luskin and Herman, would be that "they are funded by a federal grant." That opens up the doors for anyone to declare any entity funded by a government grant to be a state actor. Then when some 5th grader with over-involved parents gets suspended from a public school, they will have the precedent of Armstrong v. USADA, that little Johnny was deprived of his right to due process because the local school district is a state actor because they were funded by a federal grant. Until there is a legitimate LEGAL reason they should be declared a state actor, we need to stop working on the assumption that anyone, USADA included, is worried about that.

 

[egtalbot]

Then when some 5th grader with over-involved parents gets suspended from a public school, they will have the precedent of Armstrong v. USADA, that little Johnny was deprived of his right to due process because the local school district is a state actor because they were funded by a federal grant.

I confess I don't know for sure, but I thought local school districts WERE state actors.

 

[Benotti69]

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/

 

[DomesticDomestique]

I confess I don't know for sure, but I thought local school districts WERE state actors.

That's a good question, school districts may be state actors, and that may have been a bad example. The problem though remains, Judge Sparks does not want to create a precedent that
IF an entity receives federal funding
THEN they are a state actor
Lance needs to supply a substantial amount more to the IF portion, in order for a judge to want to set that precedent.

 

[Race Radio]

I do not have any links to support any claim. My wording was poor and I should not have said that usada definitively committed a criminal act, but what I was trying to say is. - it has been reported that usada sat in with the FED’s during their interrogations of the team mates and witnesses. What authority did usada have in order to sit in on the interrogations? That to me seems to be a problem for usada. (Note: I did not claim that they have committed a criminal offense).

Of course you know that Travis was there because the riders requested he be there.

Continue with the smokescreen Flicker

 

[Ninety5rpm]

If someone tells me that if I do not give up the goods on someone they will make it where I can never work again, and then I think that is not the way to go about getting information.

If they can make it where you can never work again because you deserve to never work again because of the rules you've repeatedly broken, regardless of what you say or don't say, then they're just offering you a break from that if you cooperate and tell the truth. Nothing wrong with that.

It can cause or lead to false admissions and false evidence.

Sure in theory. But in this particular case you're suggesting that people like George Hincapie and Levi Leipheimer will make up lies and commit perjury, telling lies about seeing Lance Armstrong use PEDs and intimidate others into using PEDs when he actually didn't, thus risking not only prison time but also a huge libel case from Armstrong, all to avoid charges so that they can ride one more Tour. Seriously?

Anyway, this is exactly the kind of stuff the arbitration panel is supposed to consider and weigh in deciding whether someone is telling the truth or lying.

Please think about the ramifications of what you're saying. I know either you're a remarkably good impersonator or Lance is your lifelong friend, but I'm assuming the latter. Given that, I can't imagine how painful this is for you personally, but you and he are not the only ones affected by his terrible choices in the past. He created an environment and legacy that has paved the way for more ridiculous performances like Hamilton, Landis, Contador and countless others, probably including what we're seeing from Sky in this Tour.

Maybe, just maybe, if enough Tour titles are taken away, especially years later when it takes that long to prove the cheating, we will finally have some kind of effective deterrent. I'm sure it seems unfair to those who cheated among a bunch of other cheaters, but you have to admit that the cheating apparently done on Postal/Discovery seems to have been taken, perhaps largely thanks to Ferrari, to a whole different level, resulting in 7 astounding Tour wins. Is that fair? Really?

It happens in law enforcement when they get someone to confess to a crime they never committed and crimes that someone else may have never committed. I do not know if this has happened here but some of the legal lawsuit information filed by the lawyers yesterday seems to indicate that could have happened.

Yes, it can happen. And, again, that's one of the factors the arbitration panel is supposed to take into account. But it's no reason to completely discount testimony so obtained.

 

[Race Radio]

I think this 30 day extension is the harbinger of a settlement between USADA and Armstrong. Here's why:

Armstrong can't win, but he has shown a willingness to try to get the USADA declared a state actor. There is a real chance that the USADA could be declared a state actor. That wouldn't help Armstrong much, because the case against him (primarily witness testimony) is presumably pretty strong, and a few constitutional protections won't change the verdict. But it would harm the USADA considerably in its general fight against doping. The USADA may well decide that it is better to settle with, say, one or two seasons taken away, and thus avoid the risk of being declared a state actor.

Armstrong is one of the few potential defendants who have the financial ability and motivation to pursue this sort of strategy. If USADA settles with Armstrong, they probably won't face a similar threat for quite some time.

I agree that the likelihood of Lance begging for a settlement is high, he knows he is screwed......but there is no chance USADA will be declared a state actor. Many have tried, all have failed. Armstrong's attempt is nothing more then media spin, it has no basis in reality

 

[dbrower]

There is very little reason to believe they will be declared a state actor. There is no legal foundation, as in a law or federal court ruling, in Armstrong's case to reach that conclusion. And there is a substantial amount of foundation to support the fact that they are not a state actor. Judges also will not want to create the enormous slippery slope that would be created by ruling that they are a state actor. Think of it this way, assume judge Sparks agrees with Lance and rules that USADA is a state actor, his ruling is going to have to contain some justification. Right now that justification, provided by Luskin and Herman, would be that "they are funded by a federal grant." That opens up the doors for anyone to declare any entity funded by a government grant to be a state actor.

Let's pretend that USADA is found to be a "state actor". Is this is criminal matter, or something that would reasonably fall under administrative law? I'm not sure how 'state actor' status changes much without clearing a number of other hurdles.

-dB

 

[Deagol]

...witnesses claim that they were intimidated ...

Do you see the irony of this accusation?
Tyler in Aspen ring a bell?

 

[KingsMountain]

It been posted here before, but Michael McCann outlines the arguments for and against the state actor idea.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_mccann/07/09/Lance-Armstrong-sues-USADA/index.html

In Armstrong's view, although USADA is nominally a nongovernmental entity, it operates as a state actor, meaning it acts on behalf of the government. If USADA is a state actor, it would be required to provide athletes with constitutional safeguards. Armstrong has a point that the quasi-criminal nature of USADA's proceedings may command greater due process. USADA is a creation of the federal government, receives funding from the federal government and regulates athletes on behalf of the federal government. As Armstrong detailed in his complaint, USADA also investigated him with cooperation from the Justice Department and FBI. Logically, if USADA sounds like the government, talks like the government and gets funding from the government, there is a good argument that it is the government.

He also talk about the stakes for USADA if it is declared a state actor.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Of course you know that Travis was there because the riders requested he be there.

Why did they make that request? And how do you know?

 

[Microchip]

I agree that the likelihood of Lance begging for a settlement is high, he knows he is screwed......but there is no chance USADA will be declared a state actor. Many have tried, all have failed. Armstrong's attempt is nothing more then media spin, it has no basis in reality

I hope taking away the Big Seven is NON-negotiable. What kind of settlement might he ask for that USADA would consider reasonable?

 

[Deagol]

If usada were to try and come into my house looking for information or evidence to incriminate a friend of mine then I would tell them to get lost. Maybe not in those specific words because I would use some other more appropriate curse words .....

It is obvioius long before now that you don't care about the truth, only your place in the "cool kids club".

 

[VeloCity]

Claim's are made by both sides. usada and Lance.

Out of curiosity, and I ask this seriously, just how many witnesses saying the same thing would be enough? 20? 40?

The 30 day extension by usada is interesting. Maybe they are offering some type of deal? Lance will never take a deal he will not fold.

He should've accepted a deal and folded a long time ago. As it is, he's painted himself into a corner with no way out. The dumbest thing he's done and will do is to try and fight all of this.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Assuming Armstrong is a doper, if I were Armstrong, I'd put USADA to the test by offering to snitch on every single rider who's ever doped in exchange for full immunity. I'd love to see whether or not USADA would take the deal. Although I don't think Armstrong would ever admit to anything.

Armstrong was offered the opportunity to talk to USADA at the beginning, he has chosen to fight this (through the courts!).

Also, there is no such thing as full immunity and as most of the witnesses will have confessed to their own doping there is little that Armstrong could offer.

 

[MarkvW]

I think this 30 day extension is the harbinger of a settlement between USADA and Armstrong. Here's why:

Armstrong can't win, but he has shown a willingness to try to get the USADA declared a state actor. There is a real chance that the USADA could be declared a state actor. That wouldn't help Armstrong much, because the case against him (primarily witness testimony) is presumably pretty strong, and a few constitutional protections won't change the verdict. But it would harm the USADA considerably in its general fight against doping. The USADA may well decide that it is better to settle with, say, one or two seasons taken away, and thus avoid the risk of being declared a state actor.

Armstrong is one of the few potential defendants who have the financial ability and motivation to pursue this sort of strategy. If USADA settles with Armstrong, they probably won't face a similar threat for quite some time.

On the other hand, if they win this case (which Armstrong would likely appeal) they would have precedent that would daunt even the most bold future challenger. Settling with Armstrong would also be unseemly after obtaining full sanction against some of the other co-cons. And if USADA's case is THAT good, settling is nothing more than bowing down before Armstrong's money.

The actions USADA performs are easy to claim and prove. If Lance gets a state action argument to persuade USADA to cut a deal, others will follow because proving what USADA does is easy, and Lance will have already furnished a template. Settling will only encourage bs future lawsuits.

 

[HL2037]

It was rumoured on Twitter that Dr. Celaya has opted for an arbitration. Can anyone confirm and if so will it be open or closed? When will it begin?

If Celaya's arbitration starts right away and Armstrong's is delayed 30 days won't that give Armstrong's defence a golden opportunity to find out who the witnesses are and then "convince" one or more of them that they were threatened by USADA?

 

[mewmewmew13]

It was rumoured on Twitter that Dr. Celaya has opted for an arbitration. Can anyone confirm and if so will it be open or closed? When will it begin?

If Celaya's arbitration starts right away and Armstrong's is delayed 30 days won't that give Armstrong's defence a golden opportunity to find out who the witnesses are and then "convince" one or more of them that they were threatened by USADA?

Wow lance got to Celaya with a bribe....

 

[college]

Of course you know that Travis was there because the riders requested he be there.

Continue with the smokescreen Flicker

This is the last time I am going to ask that someone does not try and attribute either nick names or call me names to try and make fun of me. The next time I am going to report it.

I'm just trying to discuss the usada case vs Lance. If Travis was there and you have proof then that is great because you seem to have inside knowledge of usada. I do not know this but maybe you do. You are making comments about a smokescreen. This is a message board designed or with the intentions to discuss. This is not a court nor is anything that might be posted considered to be nothing more than a conversation.

 

[snackattack]

... there is little that Armstrong could offer.

Huh you bet, it has been in place for ages but jurisdiction of this kind will be re-written and that under counter illegal scum like U$ADA, WA$A or CA$ alike who smoke ran like water over the last decade will stop to exist. The fight is on both sides of the Atlantic at present, with a similar case on the same merrits in the European court about to make waves as a ruling is imminent.

 

[Smera1]

Maybe a little PR on their part. "We are very confident in our case and procedure, but if Mr. Armstrong feels the need to try to get this process taken to federal court, we will certainly allow him to do this. We want to be as fair and open as we can. We feel certain based on precedent that the complaint filed by Mr Armstrong is baseless, and our answer will provide the detail necessary to completely counter his claims, but we do want the judge to have time to adequately assess all of the mistakes and empty claims in Mr Armstrong's complaint."

As I understand, USADA is giving Armstrong a big rope, allowing him to hang himself. Thanks for your ever clear assesment of the case.

Best Regards.