USADA - Armstrong

[FoxxyBrown1111]

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.


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?


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.

1+ Very reasonable post. But i offer you an avatar bet: "College" will never reply with reasonable counter arguments. So my question to you is: Why you waste your time with such a long post to convince a fanboy? I also bet he´s no friend of Armstrong, just another blinded fanatic, who want´s to be friend w/Lance, only that he didn´t acknowledged that Armstrong cares a $hit about others, including his fans.

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.

He want´s to save his @ss by all means. He´d even bring try to bring down Verbrüggen and McQuaid. Why not? Go on.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

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

To not give him a lifetime ban, to back date his 2 year ban to 2010, so he can compete in Triathlon from next year on.

 

[college]

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

You think that this type of statement is appropriate? Do you honestly believe that Lance would bribe him?

 

[DomesticDomestique]

To college,

I will use "you" in the following scenario, but it could be anyone, I'm just using "you" as the subject.

Consider that USADA comes to you and says, "We know you cheated, we know you weren't the only one, and we know you probably were forced into doing it by some 'higher-ups.' Given the evidence we have we can pursue a two year ban against you. However, if you provide assistance in catching the 'higher-ups,' we'll cut that down to say, 6 months."

There are TWO possibilities, what they allege is TRUE or FALSE! And you have TWO choices, COOPERATE or FIGHT. This makes a total of FOUR scenarios. They are outlined below:

TRUE & COOPERATE: You clear your conscience, reduce your sanction, and feel better telling the truth and you can stop worrying about eventually getting caught for previous crimes.

FALSE & COOPERATE: You choose to lie, rat out a friend who didn't do anything, and accept a small sanction for something YOU NEVER DID! Now, you went from someone who never doped, to someone who admitted it and ratted out someone else who didn't dope all so you could get suspended for 6 months.

TRUE & FIGHT: You choose to keep fighting, risk an 8 year ban if ever caught, because now you've also lied to USADA, and you keep having to worry about getting caught, but you are free to race in the mean time.

FALSE & FIGHT: You know you didn't do anything, and you are fairly confident that USADA will have a difficult time proving anything because IT never happened. You don't have any thing to feel guilty about because you didn't lie or rat anyone out for something they didn't do and in all likelihood you won't get punished.

3/4 of those seem like somewhat reasonable things to do. Yet you are alleging that 10, yes TEN, people chose the one of those scenarios that makes NO SENSE!

 

[Cimacoppi49]

You think that this type of statement is appropriate? Do you honestly believe that Lance would bribe him?

Of course, that's a rhetorical question, right?

 

[HL2037]

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

It was an honest question though maybe stupid? But the way I understand it the USADA procedure is that the defendant must decide if he wants an arbitration or not before he sees the evidence (?)

And there is probably an overlap between the evidence against Armstong and the evidence against Celaya. So if an open arbitration of Celaya's case starts before the 30 days are up, then Armstrong has an unfair advantage?

 

[Race Radio]

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.

What are you talking about?

The fire that powers the smokescreen is getting weaker, it is flickering, almost out. Going to be a long cold winter

 

[Race Radio]

You think that this type of statement is appropriate? Do you honestly believe that Lance would bribe him?

I doubt he did in this case.

How much did he give Tommy D's ex-wife to keep her mouth shut?

 

[goober]

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

I am guessing you are asking 'enough' for USADA to sanction Lance? My serious answer, although you are not asking me, there are no 'valid' witness situations with USADA - unless Lance admits to guilt - in which case he would be a witness. I agree with the Federal Lawsuit Lance's lawyers has filed. Even if I feel 100% Lance doped, if I saw it with my own eyes, and hated him more than I have hated any person on earth I would still agree with most of the Federal Lawsuit's position.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

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.

I'm not impressed with Mr. McCann. Vermont Law School and Mississippi College School of Law are not great credentials. He looks young. I wonder how many federal cases he's tried.

 

[Microchip]

 

[Race Radio]

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?

Yes, he opted for Arbitration.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

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

Procedural due process is required of state actors. That's the big deal. USADA has a huge problem with that if they don't expose their witnesses to meaningful cross examination.

That brings up a huge problem for Lance: How can he argue that he didn't get PDP when he's saying he shouldn't have to participate in the USADA proceedings? IOW, even if Lance proves state action, how can he claim that the 'state' played unfair when Lance refused to play before suing?

 

[Cimacoppi49]

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

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.

All you need is one credible witness.

 

[Race Radio]

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.

The Feds did not even share evidence with USADA so they were hardly cooperating.

there is zero basis for this. Armstrong knows it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

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.

Dr. Ferrari?

 

[Armanius]

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.

Opportunity to "talk" is different than an offer to settle. If I was a defendant (and assuming I'm guilty as charged), I would never talk before knowing what kind of offer I can get. Not to say that USADA didn't give Armstrong an offer, but if it did, I haven't heard or read anything about that.

As to the other witnesses (other than Floyd and Tyler) having already supposedly confessed, was there any evidence that they doped, and hence, they had no choice but to confess to USADA (and purportedly snitch on Armstrong)? If there was evidence against the other witnesses, when did USADA know about it? And IF the evidence had been out there for a while, why were the other witnesses not charged earlier, separate and apart with the current charges against Armstrong and his cohorts?

 

[college]

I doubt he did in this case.

How much did he give Tommy D's ex-wife to keep her mouth shut?

You are making this very personal.

What does Danielson have to do with the usada case besides him being one of witnesses that usada have? Do you think usada will bring up his ex-wife and money that was given to her during the divorce settlement? If that is true then usada really have gone off the deep end.

 

[KingsMountain]

Procedural due process is required of state actors. That's the big deal. USADA has a huge problem with that if they don't expose their witnesses to meaningful cross examination.

That brings up a huge problem for Lance: How can he argue that he didn't get PDP when he's saying he shouldn't have to participate in the USADA proceedings? IOW, even if Lance proves state action, how can he claim that the 'state' played unfair when Lance refused to play before suing?

In terms of driving a settlement, the issue is not how state action helps Armstrong (not much) but how much it hurts the USADA. The USADA has to look to the future. The risk may be more than they wish to undertake.

 

[Warhawk]

I'm not impressed with Mr. McCann. Vermont Law School and Mississippi College School of Law are not great credentials. He looks young. I wonder how many federal cases he's tried.

Hey, my cousin went to Vermont...

 

[oldschoolnik]

You are making this very personal.

What does Danielson have to do with the usada case besides him being one of witnesses that usada have? Do you think usada will bring up his ex-wife and money that was given to her during the divorce settlement? If that is true then usada really have gone off the deep end.

Here's a Question for you:
Why would someone who is for clean sport (as I assume Lance is), sue the very organization tasked with keeping sport clean in US? Since Lance is so gifted wouldn't it be in his best interests to support rather than sue the organization (and individual behind the organization)?

 

[Race Radio]

In terms of driving a settlement, the issue is not how state action helps Armstrong (not much) but how much it hurts the USADA. The USADA has to look to the future. The risk may be more than they wish to undertake.

Given that USADA, and other Feds, have fought and won this silly argument multiple times I doubt USADA sees any risk from something that is little more then a talking point

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Opportunity to "talk" is different than an offer to settle. If I was a defendant (and assuming I'm guilty as charged), I would never talk before knowing what kind of offer I can get. Not to say that USADA didn't give Armstrong an offer, but if it did, I haven't heard or read anything about that.

Your earlier point was LA should test USADA by offering to snitch for full immunity.

I'm now not really sure what you are asking?

As to the other witnesses (other than Floyd and Tyler) having already supposedly confessed, was there any evidence that they doped, and hence, they had no choice but to confess to USADA (and purportedly snitch on Armstrong)? If there was evidence against the other witnesses, when did USADA know about it? And IF the evidence had been out there for a while, why were the other witnesses not charged earlier, separate and apart with the current charges against Armstrong and his cohorts?

This has been covered earlier - but in short, one would imagine Floyd & Tyler named others, those others were confronted with the evidence and opted to co-operate (garmin encouraged their riders to do so).
I fully expect those all to be sanctioned after the conspiracy case is over.

 

[BroDeal]

I LOLed.

.......