USADA - Armstrong

[Ninety5rpm]

Again, how/why are some of you people leaping to the conclusion that USADA sat in on DOJ's interviews? This is total conjecture and obviously an Armstrong talking point. Tygart has stated repeatedly that this did not happen. At minimum it's a he said / she said and there is no basis for assuming this as fact.

That would be pretty difficult to deny if it were true since there would be too many witnesses.

 

[college]

Let's see.

Doping cheater Tyler denied. Sanctioned.
Doping cheater Floyd denied. Sanctioned.
Doping cheater Frankie admitted. No sanction.
Doping cheater George (apparently) admitted. No sanction.
Doping cheater Levi (apparently) admitted. No sanction.

Hmm. I'm beginning to see a pattern here. Anyone else? Let's play fill-in-the-blank...

Doping cheater Lance denied. ___________________

So you think Lance will change his tune?

The end is near for Lance? Because he denied and will then get the sanction? That is the pattern. Not everything goes according to patterns.

Since this is not the floyd or tyler thread I will not bring them up again. I apologize for that.

 

[dbrower]

Juliet Macur ‏@JulietMacur
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency says Johan Bruyneel has asked for his doping case to go to arbitration. Could be a public hearing.

Juliet Macur ‏@JulietMacur
A day after Rep. James Sensenbrenner questioned USADA's right to punish Lance Armstrong, Sen. John McCain publicly gives USADA his support.

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0

Wondeboy gets some congressman.....USADA comes back with Sen John McCain

I fully support USADA and its right to undertake the investigation of, and bring charges against, Lance Armstrong. USADA is authorized by Congress and provides assurances to taxpayers, fans and competitors that sports in America are clean.

Checkmate

 

[dbrower]

No one is saying the testimony can’t be heard. The problem is that testimony can be brought to arbitration without having the actual witness present for cross examination. It is not a court of law is it? That is the problem with this entire arbitration system.

That didn't happen in Landis; you (and Team Armstrong) are arguing that bacause you think it could happen it will happen, and must be prevented.

It hasn't happened in past USADA cases, and the proper response would be to have it happen, with proof in the record, THEN try to go court.

-dB

 

[college]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0

Wondeboy gets some congressman.....USADA comes back with Sen John McCain



Checkmate

Trust but verify beat you to it. It was not a big deal when the congressman from Wisconsin made a statement and it is not a big deal now that McCain has made a statement. So what. This is not important. What is important is how the judge will find usada as a state actor due to the poor decisions to act like they were the law.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I know and YOU know they were. You can try to make up some type of story to deny it but guess what, even usada does not deny that they were in europe on the jeff novitsky big buck hunting tour.

I know that Novitzky and Tygart were in Europe at the same time - but i was inquiring as to your claim that "the Feds invited USADA", which is quite different.

 

[thehog]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0

Wondeboy gets some congressman.....USADA comes back with Sen John McCain




Checkmate

A Knight on the Rim is Dim.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Ignoring the fact that this is just text reported by Outside Magazine which, like any other media report, is not to be taken as gospel, I read nothing that specifically says USADA "sat in" on interviews.

Are you really going all in on this issue? If the appropriate authorities deem that USADA is not a state actor in this case, you'll be in agreement with whatever happens to Armstrong afterwards?

Realy? Did you not see the press back in 2010? Just this from outside magazine.
Is it true or is it just a talking point? I guess you hope it is a talking point but guess what the answer to your guess is wrong.
Outside magazine in sep 2010
"According to reports, Novitzky, with the backing of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Los Angeles—and the de facto partnership of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), a private body—has contacted, and sometimes subpoenaed, current and former Armstrong teammates like Landis, George Hincapie, and Tyler Hamilton, along with employees at sponsors like Trek and Nike. Greg LeMond, a frequent Armstrong scourge, has been asked for documents relating to a past civil case in which LeMond battled Trek over the manufacturer's sales of his signature bikes, with Trek saying LeMond devalued the brand by accusing Armstrong of doping. It's also clear, based on conversations with many sources in a position to know—most of whom requested anonymity, fearing legal repercussions—that Novitzky has targeted peripheral figures, including people who may have testified in old civil cases involving Armstrong that touched on doping."

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0

Wondeboy gets some congressman.....USADA comes back with Sen John McCain




Checkmate

Nice Mr. McCain.

 

[Microchip]

http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0

Wondeboy gets some congressman.....USADA comes back with Sen John McCain

Checkmate

USADA keeps coming out with pleasant surprises every time. This organization is very interesting!

 

[BroDeal]

And the fat congressman comes off looking a little more corrupt than he already is and a lot more ignorant.

Hard to make this stuff up.

The NY Daily News has an article about this. It points out Sensenbrenner's previous support for steroid control and finishes up with the USADA's response.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/it...ce-of-drug-control-policy-about-lance-armstro

Are you tired of seeing Members of Congress insert themselves into the issue of performance-enhancing drugs and methods in sports? Do you wish your elected representatives would **** out of the doping disputes and let the sporting world regulate itself?

If you answered yes to both of those questions, then you definitely want to skip the letter that Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) sent Thursday to the Office of Drug Control Policy, demanding answers about the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s case against cyclist Lance Armstrong.

 

[college]

I know that Novitzky and Tygart were in Europe at the same time - but i was inquiring as to your claim that "the Feds invited USADA", which is quite different.

Never thought you would claim the invitation. Classic.

 

[D-Queued]

...

The way I see the usada vs. Lance case is that from the time usada was invited by the FEDS to sit in on the interrogations was the time that usada became the state actor thus they have collectively become defactO a state organization. That will be usada's problem from here on and to think even some here want Lance to bargin with usada when he has a chance to effectively close the organization. If usada was for clean sport then where were they when Floyd and Tyler were off on their own doing what they done? Those two had to be busted by foreign labs. It is rational to think that those two were doing the same here on American soil? What about the out of competition testing that usada should have been doing? Where were they?

This is really funny, funny stuff.



When do voluntary testimonies count as interrogations?

Are you suggesting that Tyler and Floyd had to be treated as hostile witnesses and interrogated?

The case also was spurred by disgraced cyclist Floyd Landis, who claims Armstrong had a long-running doping system in place while they were teammates. Landis, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for drug use, acknowledged in 2010 he used performance-enhancing drugs after years of denying he cheated.

One of the most serious accusations came during a "60 Minutes" interview last May when former teammate Tyler Hamilton said he saw Armstrong use EPO during the 1999 Tour de France and in preparation for the 2000 and 2001 tours.

Chris Manderson, the lawyer representing Hamilton, told ESPN.com's Bonnie Ford the former cyclist was honest in his testimony to grand jurors, his further discussions with federal investigators, and in his "60 Minutes" interview.

Perhaps the only potential challenging witness might have been Lance, himself. But, didn't he decline to be 'interviewed'?

Unlike Bonds and Clemens, who testified before a federal grand jury and Congress, respectively, and were accused of lying under oath, Armstrong was not questioned in front of the grand jury.

Yours is nothing but a sensationalist argument, designed to further a false PR campaign.

Dave.

 

[Johnny Rotten]

The NY Daily News has an article about this. It points out Sensenbrenner previous support for steroid control and finishes up with the USADA's response.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/it...ce-of-drug-control-policy-about-lance-armstro

Are you tired of seeing Members of Congress insert themselves into the issue of performance-enhancing drugs and methods in sports? Do you wish your elected representatives would **** out of the doping disputes and let the sporting world regulate itself?

If you answered yes to both of those questions, then you definitely want to skip the letter that Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) sent Thursday to the Office of Drug Control Policy, demanding answers about the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s case against cyclist Lance Armstrong.

Reading that story I found this to be the most damning part,

USADA’s chief executive officer, Travis Tygart said:

""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."

 

[MacRoadie]

I'm wondering how often the DOJ will ask an outside expert to sit in on meetings, interviews, etc, especially when the subject matter being investigated is of a very specialized or highly scientific nature. Not to forward or direct or even "participate" in an active sense, but simply to serve as a "translator" if you will.

Providing an interpretation of technical language or jargon into layman's terms, explaining the meaning of answers or providing an understanding of the science would seem to be necessary in an investigation such as this.

Does that make every expert or outside consultant a "state actor"?

 

[aphronesis]

I'm wondering how often the DOJ will ask an outside expert to sit in on meetings, interviews, etc, especially when the subject matter being investigated is of a very specialized or highly scientific nature. Not to forward or direct or even "participate" in an active sense, but simply to serve as a "translator" if you will.

Providing an interpretation of technical language or jargon into layman's terms, explaining the meaning of answers or providing an understanding of the science would seem to be necessary in an investigation such as this.

Does that make every expert or outside consultant a "state actor"?

No, I believe this distinction was covered, cursorily, in one of pedal pusher's posts a couple of days ago.

One distinction, as I understand it, is already inherent in your question: not all experts or consultants have independent or autonomous power to make use of said knowledge once obtained.

 

[college]

I'm wondering how often the DOJ will ask an outside expert to sit in on meetings, interviews, etc, especially when the subject matter being investigated is of a very specialized or highly scientific nature. Not to forward or direct or even "participate" in an active sense, but simply to serve as a "translator" if you will.

Providing an interpretation of technical language or jargon into layman's terms, explaining the meaning of answers or providing an understanding of the science would seem to be necessary in an investigation such as this.

Does that make every expert or outside consultant a "state actor"?

It might be but now it is up to a Texas judge. Maybe not everyone but in this case it is my opinion that usada was acting on behalf of the state.

 

[thorny59]

turning on fraudstrong

here is a press release from sen john mcCain

“@SenJohnMcCain: My stmt of support for @usantidoping investigation of Lance Armstrong: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0

 

[BroDeal]

I hope Armstrong succeeds with the judge. I want a public trial where all the evidence will be exposed instead of being locked away in a PDF summary that few will read. I want the news to do a play-by-play for the duration of the trial, spreading knowledge of Armstrong's lying and fraud to as many people as possible.

 

[MacRoadie]

It might be but now it is up to a Texas judge. Maybe not everyone but in this case it is my opinion that usada was acting on behalf of the state.

And I'm simply asking if there is general precedent for outside consultants or experts to participte in an investigation, sit in on interviews and meetings, etc. without automatically falling under the umbrella of "state actor".

I'm willing to accept that even if they didn't use any information obtained or overheard in said meeting, it could still certainly provide a road map for any independent and subsequent USADA probe. Sort of like a hury being instructed to "ignore" a witnesses' response.

 

[D-Queued]

No one is saying the testimony can’t be heard. The problem is that testimony can be brought to arbitration without having the actual witness present for cross examination....

That didn't happen in Landis; you (and Team Armstrong) are arguing that bacause you think it could happen it will happen, and must be prevented.

It hasn't happened in past USADA cases, and the proper response would be to have it happen, with proof in the record, THEN try to go court.

-dB

Thanks dB.

College, given that likely nobody has more specific insight into the details of the Landis precedent and the procedural arguments (and especially because of his bias at the time), you should heed his comments.

In other words, your arguments are built on quicksand.

Dave.

 

[shawnrohrbach]

No one is saying the testimony can’t be heard. The problem is that testimony can be brought to arbitration without having the actual witness present for cross examination. It is not a court of law is it? That is the problem with this entire arbitration system.
I am not someone who asks many questions but why is usada only focused on the punishment and life time banned sanctions against Lance? I know they are after JB and the trainers but seriously what happened to the other US cyclist?
Frankie admited to EPO use. Did they go after a sanction on him? Nope.

The rules of arbitration are different with different arbitrating bodies, and therefore evidence and testimony can be treated differently. The key here is whether the arbitration rules the usada employs were made clear before professional cyclists agreed, voluntarily, to those rules? I would assume they were. I've agreed to go to arbitration for a variety of reasons in my professional career and save the money usually associated with a court room. I have always read the rules of arbitration very carefully before singing the agreement and before the arbitration began, every time the person(s) conducting the arbitration asked if I was there willingly and on my own volition and required I sign a document to that effect. It is a valid process for settling disputes without involving civil courts, as long as both sides agreed to the rules.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

here is a press release from sen john mcCain

“@SenJohnMcCain: My stmt of support for @usantidoping investigation of Lance Armstrong: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public...ecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0

Wow!! I didn't vote for him, but I've always respected his integrity if not his political positions. This was likely prompted by Fabiani and his motley crew trying to get McCain to do like the Congressman from Wisconsin. Seems to me that Armstrong is weakening significantly as more about his case (all those blood samples) comes out.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I hope Armstrong succeeds with the judge. I want a public trial where all the evidence will be exposed instead of being locked away in a PDF summary that few will read. I want the news to do a play-by-play for the duration of the trial, spreading knowledge of Armstrong's lying and fraud to as many people as possible.

Interesting point. But i like the PDF style, since jurys will be manipulated. BTW, Walsh and/or Kimmage will take care of making it public. If they get rich out of it? I grant it to them. W/O them, nothing would have ever get started.