USADA - Armstrong

[BroDeal]

Absolutely. A huge step in the wrong direction and very Armstrongesque. Underhanded tactics have no place in this forum or fight.

Particularly since our team via USADA states this:

“The evidence is overwhelming, and were we not to bring this case, we would be complicit in covering up evidence of doping, and failing to do our job on behalf of those we are charged with protecting."

No need to bring a highly volatile and sensitive tangential distraction into a fight for the truth.

Strength and Honor.

We need a site like Trust But Verify-- yeah, I know, laughable example. It could serve as a way to distribute information, something that anyone writing about the Armstrong case could look for info where the research has been done for them. Most people don't want to dig it out of threads with thousands of posts. An example is the quotes of the Congressman along with his sponsorship of steroid laws. That sort of hypocrisy should be gold to anyone writing about the case.

 

[TubularBills]

The consensus appears to be that the strongest case Armstrong has relates to domain.

Really?

This is absurd.

The United States (as a signatory to the Copenhagen treaty and through both the USOC and the U.S. Paralympics - United States Olympic Committee), the USADA and the UCI have all signed the WADA code. All did so a long time ago - well before Lance stole all his TdF titles.

Even way back then, the Code included retroactive penalties.

Even Bill Stapleton has testified (SCA Arbitration) about the jurisdiction of WADA (see earlier post).

The Code, and the Nation members of UNESCO understood long ago about the potential legal conflict. So, they created and adopted an international treaty.

Many governments cannot be legally bound by a non-governmental document such as the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). Accordingly, governments prepared the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport, a political document through which they signalled their intention to formally recognize and implement the Code through an international treaty. The Copenhagen Declaration was finalized in 2003.

That is all the good judge needs to know.

Lance may think otherwise, and he may be a professional triathlete and a cancer Jesus. Even with these important credentials, and no matter how much he paid Ferrari or even donated to Hein at the UCI, Lance is still not bigger than the sport of cycling or the United States of America.

It is true that news sometimes travels more slowly in Texas, and Texas may be its own country within a country. Thus, it is of some relevance that the following announcement on who had signed the Code was made just down the street from Lance's house in San Antonio:

"...On this occasion, the remaining National Olympic Committes (NOCs) from the Americas who had not signed the Code did so. As of April 27, 185 out of the 202 existing NOCs in the world have accepted the Code...."

The Code.Rocks.Lance's.World.

Dave.

Well said and absolute kudos for the research & supporting links! Bravo! Sniper should lend you his handle.

 

[Maxiton]

The consensus appears to be that the strongest case Armstrong has relates to domain.

Really?

This is absurd.

The United States (as a signatory to the Copenhagen treaty and through both the USOC and the U.S. Paralympics - United States Olympic Committee), the USADA and the UCI have all signed the WADA code. All did so a long time ago - well before Lance stole all his TdF titles.

Even way back then, the Code included retroactive penalties.

Even Bill Stapleton has testified (SCA Arbitration) about the jurisdiction of WADA (see earlier post).

The Code, and the Nation members of UNESCO understood long ago about the potential legal conflict. So, they created and adopted an international treaty.

Many governments cannot be legally bound by a non-governmental document such as the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). Accordingly, governments prepared the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport, a political document through which they signalled their intention to formally recognize and implement the Code through an international treaty. The Copenhagen Declaration was finalized in 2003.

That is all the good judge needs to know.

Lance may think otherwise, and he may be a professional triathlete and a cancer Jesus. Even with these important credentials, and no matter how much he paid Ferrari or even donated to Hein at the UCI, Lance is still not bigger than the sport of cycling or the United States of America.

It is true that news sometimes travels more slowly in Texas, and Texas may be its own country within a country. Thus, it is of some relevance that the following announcement on who had signed the Code was made just down the street from Lance's house in San Antonio:

"...On this occasion, the remaining National Olympic Committes (NOCs) from the Americas who had not signed the Code did so. As of April 27, 185 out of the 202 existing NOCs in the world have accepted the Code...."

The Code.Rocks.Lance's.World.

Dave.

No, the consensus is that Armstrong's strongest case is that USADA is a state actor here.

 

[MarkvW]

No, the consensus is that Armstrong's strongest case is that USADA is a state actor here.

But keep in mind that even if Armstrong would win with the state actor argument, he still has to prove that the "state actor" did him wrong in some way.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Travis Tygart is awesome

The evidence is overwhelming, and were we not to bring this case, we would be complicit in covering up evidence of doping, and failing to do our job on behalf of those we are charged with protecting.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-congressman-questions-role-of-usada-in-armstrong-case

 

[TubularBills]

We need a site like Trust But Verify-- yeah, I know, laughable example. It could serve as a way to distribute information, something that anyone writing about the Armstrong case could look for info where the research has been done for them. Most people don't want to dig it out of threads with thousands of posts. An example is the quotes of the Congressman along with his sponsorship of steroid laws. That sort of hypocrisy should be gold to anyone writing about the case.

I agree - the misinformation being incessantly restated and perpetuated in supposed fair and balanced reporting indicates that journalistic integrity is a relic of the past.

On the drive home the other night while listening to a BBC World News update they had a brief piece on the Stark dismissal and the sole supporting quote was from an Austin Statesman female journalist, who was apparently embedded in the Armstrong camp during the tour years, stating that she hadn't even heard of or met two of the three defendants named by USADA?

A reliable source? Hardly up to the usual BBC standards. Beyond Armstrong, this is clearly unveiling the diminishing standards in modern 'journalism'.

Your idea is a good one, and one already well served by RR and Dim's test graphic - It would be very easy to construct a professional site that laid it out - Beehive, CN Ashenden articles and SoS all have very viable data assembled for the campaign.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Travis Tygart is awesome



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-congressman-questions-role-of-usada-in-armstrong-case

That IS awesome!

 

[Maxiton]

But keep in mind that even if Armstrong would win with the state actor argument, he still has to prove that the "state actor" did him wrong in some way.

I thought the whole point of the state actor argument is that, having gotten it accepted, the case has to move away from arbitration and into open court?

 

[MD FACG FACP]

One of the comments on the Velonews article (paraphrased): If Trek is involved in this, then they should be boycotted.

That started 12 years ago for me.

 

[MarkvW]

I thought the whole point of the state actor argument is that, having gotten it accepted, the case has to move away from arbitration and into open court?

I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that if that were the case, the federal government could never agree to participate in an arbitration. That would be an unreasonable limitation on federal power (and governments agree to arbitration all the time). Be interesting to hear the take of others on that.

I am also wondering about the consequences of the state actor argument. If WADA is a US Government actor doing a US Government action, and Lance Armstrong is saying that the action taken by the United States government state actor is wrong--then why hasn't Lance Armstrong served the United States Government? Isn't the US a necessary party for Lance Armstrong's argument to succeed?

I mean, how can you sue to stop the "state action" of the United States Government without suing the United States Government?

Any ideas?

 

[TubularBills]

I've been shunning Armstrong-endorsed products for years.

Does anybody make high-quality Dopestrong shirts?

How about Jerseys?

Does anyone know a corporation or an extremely rich individual that wants to sponsor a DopeStrong team for the 2013 TDF?

Vaughters? Andreau? Sky?

It would get us back to reality and restore cycling as its self deprecating self, the baddest assed sport on the planet! The cheers would be phenomenal. Catharsis.

The wicked witch is dead.

The money shot.

Someone needs to go all in. The press coverage would be extraordinary.

 

[D-Queued]

No, the consensus is that Armstrong's strongest case is that USADA is a state actor here.

Really?

This is why the Good Senator from Wisconsin asserted that the ONDCP should assert its jurisdication over USADA?

This is why "The World Anti-Doping Agency issued a statement on Wednesday in response to numerous inquiries regarding the case against Lance Armstrong ... stating that any action taken by a WADA code signatory should be upheld by signatories worldwide"?

Aren't you deviating from the script to suggest that Lance's efforts to argue unconstitutionality and Trek's efforts to involve the Senator from Wisconsin are baseless and misguided?

That very concept is now under attack by Armstrong's attorneys, who has filed a federal lawsuit questioning the jurisdiction of USADA and calling the proceedings against him "unconstitutional".

Well, then, I agree with you. Misguided they are!

In fact, it is just so weird that Lance is arguing with Floyd, and yet Lance is adopting one of Floyd's most boneheaded arguments.

Floyd Fairness Fund: USADA Funded by Congress but rules of evidence deny athletes their due process

Lance and Trek lifted the strategy straight from the Floyd Fairness Fund:

Writing to your Congressional Representative or Senator will make a significant difference. You can also help the FFF work toward global fairness in sport by sending a letter to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and / or UNESCO inquiring into WADA and the LNDD’s gross negligence and breach of ethics in the analysis and management of Floyd’s test results.

Mimicry is flattery, and Floyd should be flattered.

Dave.

 

[TubularBills]

How about Jerseys?

Does anyone know a corporation or an extremely rich individual that wants to sponsor a DopeStrong team for the 2013 TDF?

Vaughters? Andreau? Sky?

It would get us back to reality and restore cycling as its self deprecating self, the baddest assed sport on the planet! The cheers would be phenomenal. Catharsis.

The wicked witch is dead.

The money shot.

Someone needs to go all in. The press coverage would be extraordinary.

For this level of disruption I think Richard Branson and a Virgin Team is our man. He would do it.

As a penalty and 'sanction' USADA could require the five to ride a victory lap + Floyd & Tyler, that's 7 - how appropriate.

Hand out Nerf Virgin branded tomatoes throughout the route.

Retribution with a soft and poignant touch - the riders would be justifiably recognized as victims of a tyrant.

Everyone wins.

 

[KingsMountain]

I thought the whole point of the state actor argument is that, having gotten it accepted, the case has to move away from arbitration and into open court?

I said it before, and I'll say it again:
IMO, the main point of the state actor argument, in Armstrong's strategy, is to provide a risk to the USADA that it may be declared a state actor. That wouldn't affect the USADA case against Armstrong much, but it will cause an adverse effect on future investigations and prosecutions. So Armstrong in effect is telling the USADA, "You may hurt me, but I'm going to make it very painful for you." That's why I think the 30 day extension was granted-- to allow time to reach a settlement that keeps the state actor question from reaching the courts.

Look, in spite of repeated denials here, we know that the state actor question is a real risk. Travis Tygart is a busy man with an important job. He took the time and effort to co-author a journal article outlining a set of reasons why the USADA isn't a state actor. The fact that he spent time and effort on this article demonstrates: 1) being declared a state actor would have an adverse effect on the mission of the USADA, and 2) there's a noticeable chance, in Tygart's opinion, that a court would rule that the USADA is a state actor. If there were no reasonable chance of that, he wouldn't have wasted his time on an academic point.

 

[D-Queued]

No, the consensus is that Armstrong's strongest case is that USADA is a state actor here.

Like the question of domain, the state actor argument is total crap.

It was laughable the last time anyone promoted it. It is even more stupid now.

Here is one view of why Lance is pursuing the state actor argument:

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.

In that case, does this sound familiar to you:

Floyd Fairness Fund

...

Please Write About: Fairness and USADA

USADA: Follow Your Own Rules
• Floyd’s case is not being handled according to USADA's own mission statement. He has clearly and consistently been denied the due process that is his right under the auspices of that mission…and as an American.

USADA: Respect Floyd's Basic Rights
• USADA has refused to provide Floyd with discovery documents that are critical to his defense. This refusal has been made notwithstanding that USADA has at least some of these documents and information in its possession, and has the ability to easily obtain any relevant documents. USADA has admitted that it has had documents pertaining to Floyd’s case for months. Fair discovery is fundamental to proper due process, Floyd --and every individual -- deserves respect for basic human rights.

USADA: We Want Our Tax Dollars to Support Fairness
• USADA receives the majority of its operating budget from your tax dollars. USADA is acting in a quasi-judicial manner, adjudicating cases of athletes accused of improprieties. Since this organization is federally supported, their adjudicative process should be bound by the same rules as the federal courts in terms of discovery and due process. Failure to follow widely accepted rules of jurisprudence results in unfair outcomes.

It was a bogus assertion by Floyd. It remains a bogus assertion by Lance.

Dave.

 

[Maxiton]

I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that if that were the case, the federal government could never agree to participate in an arbitration. That would be an unreasonable limitation on federal power (and governments agree to arbitration all the time). Be interesting to hear the take of others on that.

I am also wondering about the consequences of the state actor argument. If WADA is a US Government actor doing a US Government action, and Lance Armstrong is saying that the action taken by the United States government state actor is wrong--then why hasn't Lance Armstrong served the United States Government? Isn't the US a necessary party for Lance Armstrong's argument to succeed?

I mean, how can you sue to stop the "state action" of the United States Government without suing the United States Government?

Any ideas?

I think the point he is making is simply that USADA is comporting itself in this case as a state actor, and that he, Armstrong, is therefore entitled to due process rather than arbitration.

Since the scope of Armstrong's claim is rather narrow, I don't see how it would have any impact on government arbitration in other cases.

We had an interesting discussion about this a couple of days ago:

There are a number of situations where the United States Supreme Court has recognized the conduct of individuals or private organizations to be "state action," and therefore subject to provisions of the Constitution such as Equal Protection, Due Process, or the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held the following:

1. Merely opening up a business to the public is not state action, but the performance of a "public function" (a function that has been traditionally and exclusively performed by the state) is state action (Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)

2. If an individual or organization merely enters into a contract or asserts a contractual right outside of court is it not state action, but if an individual or organization sues to judicially enforce a contractual right it is state action (Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948)

3. If the government merely acquiesces in the performance of an act by a private individual or organization it is not state action, but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendall-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)

4. If the government merely enters into a contract with an individual or organization for the goods or services, the actions of the private party are not state action, but if the government and the private party enter into a “joint enterprise” or a “symbiotic relationship” with each other it is state action (Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)

5. If government agencies are simply members of a private organization, the actions of the organization are not state action, but if the government is "pervasively entwined" with the leadership of the private organization, the acts of the organization are state action (Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 535 U.S. 971 (2002).

Thank you for that. So there you go: As I read it, USADA is a state actor in this case under 3, 4, and 5 above.

"3. If the government merely acquiesces in the performance of an act by a private individual or organization it is not state action, but if the government coerces, influences, or encourages the performance of the act, it is state action (Rendall-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830 (1982)"

The mere presence of government investigators in an interview, nevermind a trip abroad, would tend to encourage and passively influence USADA and its investigator(s).

"4. If the government merely enters into a contract with an individual or organization for the goods or services, the actions of the private party are not state action, but if the government and the private party enter into a “joint enterprise” or a “symbiotic relationship” with each other it is state action (Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961)"

It's hard to see how joint interviews and trips abroad would not constitute a "joint enterprise", even where one party was there merely as an observer, or how it would not create a "symbiotic relationship", where the parties had interests in common.

"5. If government agencies are simply members of a private organization, the actions of the organization are not state action, but if the government is "pervasively entwined" with the leadership of the private organization, the acts of the organization are state action (Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association, 535 U.S. 971 (2002)."

If Travis Tygart has been consulting with, or even merely observing on a regular basis, these various interviews, it should be pretty easy to make the case for "pervasively intertwined".

 

[D-Queued]

Mythbusters anyone?

I think the point he is making is simply that USADA is comporting itself in this case as a state actor, and that he, Armstrong, is therefore entitled to due process rather than arbitration.

Since the scope of Armstrong's claim is rather narrow, I don't see how it would have any impact on government arbitration in other cases.

We had an interesting discussion about this a couple of days ago:

Please see the above.

Please refer to the Floyd Fairness Fund for further inspiration.

USADA: Follow Your Own Rules
• Floyd’s case is not being handled according to USADA's own mission statement. He has clearly and consistently been denied the due process that is his right under the auspices of that mission…and as an American.

Busted.

Dave.

 

[TubularBills]

Travis Tygart is awesome



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/us-congressman-questions-role-of-usada-in-armstrong-case

& eloquent.

 

[Maxiton]

Really?

This is why the Good Senator from Wisconsin asserted that the ONDCP should assert its jurisdication over USADA?

This is why "The World Anti-Doping Agency issued a statement on Wednesday in response to numerous inquiries regarding the case against Lance Armstrong ... stating that any action taken by a WADA code signatory should be upheld by signatories worldwide"?

Aren't you deviating from the script to suggest that Lance's efforts to argue unconstitutionality and Trek's efforts to involve the Senator from Wisconsin are baseless and misguided?

That very concept is now under attack by Armstrong's attorneys, who has filed a federal lawsuit questioning the jurisdiction of USADA and calling the proceedings against him "unconstitutional".

Well, then, I agree with you. Misguided they are!

In fact, it is just so weird that Lance is arguing with Floyd, and yet Lance is adopting one of Floyd's most boneheaded arguments.

Floyd Fairness Fund: USADA Funded by Congress but rules of evidence deny athletes their due process

Lance and Trek lifted the strategy straight from the Floyd Fairness Fund:

Writing to your Congressional Representative or Senator will make a significant difference. You can also help the FFF work toward global fairness in sport by sending a letter to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and / or UNESCO inquiring into WADA and the LNDD’s gross negligence and breach of ethics in the analysis and management of Floyd’s test results.

Mimicry is flattery, and Floyd should be flattered.

Dave.

Not sure what you're on about regarding deviating from the script, unless you mean screwing up their script, but their script is of no consequence to me.

I think it highly likely that the senator's letter was drafted by an Armstrong attorney ("Get it written, fax it over to me. I'm a busy man."), and this jurisdiction thing was something they were pushing, despite its being lame on its face.

The Floyd parallel you draw is superficial, I believe, in that Floyd had no case. Armstrong, on the other hand, can make a strong argument for USADA having comported itself, in this case and this case only, not generally, as a state actor.

 

[TubularBills]

Like the question of domain, the state actor argument is total crap.

It was laughable the last time anyone promoted it. It is even more stupid now.

Here is one view of why Lance is pursuing the state actor argument:

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.

In that case, does this sound familiar to you:

Floyd Fairness Fund

...

Please Write About: Fairness and USADA

USADA: Follow Your Own Rules
• Floyd’s case is not being handled according to USADA's own mission statement. He has clearly and consistently been denied the due process that is his right under the auspices of that mission…and as an American.

USADA: Respect Floyd's Basic Rights
• USADA has refused to provide Floyd with discovery documents that are critical to his defense. This refusal has been made notwithstanding that USADA has at least some of these documents and information in its possession, and has the ability to easily obtain any relevant documents. USADA has admitted that it has had documents pertaining to Floyd’s case for months. Fair discovery is fundamental to proper due process, Floyd --and every individual -- deserves respect for basic human rights.

USADA: We Want Our Tax Dollars to Support Fairness
• USADA receives the majority of its operating budget from your tax dollars. USADA is acting in a quasi-judicial manner, adjudicating cases of athletes accused of improprieties. Since this organization is federally supported, their adjudicative process should be bound by the same rules as the federal courts in terms of discovery and due process. Failure to follow widely accepted rules of jurisprudence results in unfair outcomes.

It was a bogus assertion by Floyd. It remains a bogus assertion by Lance.

Dave.

Has anyone considered that the 30 day extension was tactical? Let Armstrong expend 30 fruitless days of constant counsel... depletes his war chest, doesn't it? Tygart win.

Brilliant. A great strategic move and tactical action to preserve tax payer dollars.

The case remains the same, "overwhelming".

 

[D-Queued]

Not sure what you're on about regarding deviating from the script, unless you mean screwing up their script, but their script is of no consequence to me.

I think it highly likely that the senator's letter was drafted by an Armstrong attorney ("Get it written, fax it over to me. I'm a busy man."), and this jurisdiction thing was something they were pushing, despite its being lame on its face.

The Floyd parallel you draw is superficial, I believe, in that Floyd had no case. Armstrong, on the other hand, can make a strong argument for USADA having comported itself, in this case and this case only, not generally, as a state actor.

Oh. Okay.

Your argument being because Armstrong is so... err.. so unique?

If only Floyd had passed 500 doping tests, he might have had a chance.

Dave.

 

[BikeCentric]

Has anyone considered that the 30 day extension was tactical? Let Armstrong expend 30 fruitless days of constant counsel... depletes his war chest, doesn't it? Tygart win.

Brilliant. A great strategic move and tactical action to preserve tax payer dollars.

The case remains the same, "overwhelming".

The 30 day extension was definitely a tactical PR move. Helping Lance burn more of his money was just a pleasant side effect for the haters, but the main purpose for it was as a public relations move to show that USADA is going out of its way to treat Lance fairly before they bust his ***.

 

[BikeCentric]

The Floyd parallel you draw is superficial, I believe, in that Floyd had no case. Armstrong, on the other hand, can make a strong argument for USADA having comported itself, in this case and this case only, not generally, as a state actor.

Yeah, okay, 'cuz you say so? It was stupid when Floyd said it, and he had no case, but Armstrong has a "strong argument" in arguing the same thing because you say so.

 

[Topangarider]

Has anyone considered that the 30 day extension was tactical? Let Armstrong expend 30 fruitless days of constant counsel... depletes his war chest, doesn't it? Tygart win.

Brilliant. A great strategic move and tactical action to preserve tax payer dollars.

The case remains the same, "overwhelming".

Seems to be working. Lance looks like an idiot for getting some pathetic Congressman to challenge USADA. The press is noting a possible connection with Trek. Makes him look pathetic.

And then Ferrari claims he wasn't even notified that he was being charged by USADA yet Tygart countered that Ferrari was personally notified by messenger of both the charges and suspension. Tygart even provided the detail that Ferrari was eating dinner with his wife when a messenger brought him a hand delivered letter re his suspension.

USADA seems to making measured and forceful responses to the desperate PR nonsense from Team LA.

And now NY Daily News is running a story with LA blood values from 09-10.

 

[Oldman]

Seems to be working. Lance looks like an idiot for getting some pathetic Congressman to challenge USADA. The press is noting a possible connection with Trek. Makes him look pathetic.

And then Ferrari claims he wasn't even notified that he was being charged by USADA yet Tygart countered that Ferrari was personally notified by messenger of both the charges and suspension. Tygart even provided the detail that Ferrari was eating dinner with his wife when a messenger brought him a hand delivered letter re his suspension.

USADA seems to making measured and forceful responses to the desperate PR nonsense from Team LA.

And now NY Daily News is running a story with LA blood values from 09-10.

it looks likely that the 30 day period allows Lance to arrange some sort of settlement proposal. He's going down; just how far will USADA drop him is the issue. This could also be his sell-out option for others not named. Somebody masterminded this and Bruyneel will settle for a shortened ban so he can continue his good work as a pro DS in exchange for a mea culpa. It would be interesting to see what sort of communication is going on between Johan and Lance's handlers.
Anyone want to script some dialogue for that?