USADA - Armstrong

[D-Queued]

Blogspot is free to use. All it takes is someone with interest and time to collect and post. The only cost can be a domain name that's not under blogspot.com, and that's pretty cheap, though it looks like I messed up the free forwarding on zoneedit.com at some point.

Have at it. Someone who spends a lot of time here might find it of longer term value to do that, and it's not much harder than posting on a board.

-dB

Thanks dB. I will give this some serious thought. Honest.

Better part of a solution than a constant complainer.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Fair enough. I was surprised it took so long to come to this frankly.

No, I feel pretty much exactly the same way. Which is why it gets annoying when pronouncements get made about the future as fact when there are still so many intervening stages to go.

I seem to recall my question some days back being twofold: isn't it the case that there's some merit to the state actor argument in this instance (regardless of how LA's lawyers cast it or the writer for Outside--was it--tried to lay it out for a basic readership)? Secondly, and I mean this in a more speculative vein, even if his people do revive that tack and a judge shoots its down aren't there still aspects of the presumed involvement of the USADA with the Feds that make such an argument somewhat disturbing if it were coming to bear on someone other than Armstrong?

The first question really centers around whether the judge thinks that this instance is different enough from the prior rulings to warrant a greater examination of the question even more. There is precedent he could rely on that would allow him to kick this argument out, but he doesn't have to. His concern will be whether his ruling would survive appeals, because quite frankly, because of the SCOTUS rulings on this matter, and the actors involved, it is possible that this could go to SCOTUS if they rule the USADA is a state actor. If they don't it will still likely be appealed, but unlikely it would receive certiorari for the Supreme Court, and only go to an appeals court. I don't know enough facts about the process before now to know if there are legs to the argument, but my gut feeling is that there are. And quite honestly, as much as I hate to admit it, the fewer the rights of the accused, the less easy I am with the process. I certainly believe that an arbitration panel is fully capable of ruling competently and fairly. Many times, much more so than a district court would because of the expertise of the arbitrators (who are chosen because of their expertise). But these charges (conspiracy, organized usage of illegal products) is generally not the province of an arbitration. In short, I think that argument might have legs when I discuss it in relation to what I believe about the law instead of how I feel about Armstrong.

I certainly am not saying that I believe this should be heard in court, but I am also not going to say that there are strong arguments that it should. Here is the kicker on that, criminal charges were abandoned, and arbitration is an outside legal option for many disputes, and since there is no penal element in relation to him being deprived of life, liberty, or property. He is free to continue to live in society after this, with all of the same opportunities any of us have. He can still vote, and own a gun. He can pursue any profession he wants to dedicate himself to, and depriving him of his ceramics is not really considered a deprivation of property. Many times alternate legal proceedings are undertaken in relation to what are normally criminal charges. Now that I write that, I think I am changing my mind again...the best I can say is that I am of two minds about this right now. I want to see more evidence if possible.

I think I got to the second question in a way, though I have to say that my answer for someone other than Armstrong would likely be similar. It's a tough call, and the judge deciding it is really sharp, so I think we will get a very entertaining, and well thought out answer regardless.

Cheers.

 

[python]

<removed irrelevant pontifications about another poster's style>...aren't there still aspects of the presumed involvement of the USADA with the Feds that make such an argument somewhat disturbing if it were coming to bear on someone other than Armstrong?

this is a classic, not even as sophisticated as the author tries to spin it, a classic position of a doping apologist for armstrong. all deflection and obfuscation elements are right there

the indignation about usada process whilst no comments about the obvious doper exploiting the anti-doping process and the system. OKKey....why don't the apologists, instead of whining about the usada involvement with the fed, exploit the armstrong involvement with and corrupting the UCI to cover up his positives ? why are you not feeling 'somewhat disturbing' about that ? why are you not feeling disturbed that no one else (given the known record) attempted to corrupt the governing cycling body ?

You have plenty there to be disturbed but somehow only the obvious doper's rights and ad the ad process imperfections are in the apologist's sights...why is that ?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Well, the real scam is that the average fan believes they're all being tested maybe even multiple times per day.

 

[aphronesis]

this is a classic, not even as sophisticated as the author tries to spin it, a classic position of a doping apologist for armstrong. all deflection and obfuscation elements are right there

the indignation about usada process whilst no comments about the obvious doper exploiting the anti-doping process and the system. OKKey....why don't the apologists, instead of whining about the usada involvement with the fed, exploit the armstrong involvement with and corrupting the UCI to cover up his positives ? why are you not feeling 'somewhat disturbing' about that ? why are you not feeling disturbed that no one else (given the known record) attempted to corrupt the governing cycling body ?

You have plenty there to be disturbed but somehow only the obvious doper's rights and ad the ad process imperfections are in the apologist's sights...why is that ?

Because it's cycling snake. No doubt that did and has had implications and direct impact on people's lives, but the state actor aspect is a development that has implications for life in my country as it moves into the future. I know that's not a concern for you.....

As to Armstrong and his past, I have known this stuff since I was a kid at an age and in a position where I had to make my own decisions about these issues then for myself and in regard to the sport. I have more immediate grudges to focus on. Being angry about Armstrong 24/7 isn't going to hasten his ruin or comeuppance and will only damage me (or you, or anyone else) if it doesn't come to pass. Disliking Armstrong and his actions is a pretty easy target. I find there are more pervasive things to be concerned about and don't have lot of personal investment in this situation to lug around with me.

I try to minimize the ressentiment in my life. Give it a whirl.

As to Armstrong personally: I have made clear my position on him as an individual and the micro-culture that abetted him along with the material society and political climate. There was a thread for A the man. Go back and look it up.

This thread is about the USADA and Armstrong am I right? Sorry, did my question not bear directly on USADA's practices in the present? Do we only get to shake our pom poms and ask happy questions about this topic?

 

[ManInFull]

he latest evidence and support scrolling.

Who was it that built that really cool doping site with highly stylized graphics?
Answered my own question:
http://www.dopeology.org/
Dopeology on Armstrong:
http://www.dopeology.org/search/#basic_keywords:armstrong

Thanks for the link. Based on what I read, I'd like clarification on one of the current claims about him testing positive in 1999 for corticosteroids. Did the drug test only show trace amounts of a corticosteroid in his urine, but not enough to result in an official positive test? That's the way I read the articles from 1999. I understand that he provided a backdated TUE for this.

Yes, I realize that having trace amounts could be due to doping. But, I think there is difference between only having trace amounts and having enough to confirm a positive test. Sorry if I am rehashing history for many of you...But, many of us point out that he tested positive in 1999, but the articles published in 1999 don't appear to align with that. Please clarify things for me.

 

[python]

but the state actor aspect is a development that has implications for life in my country as it moves into the future. I know that's not a concern for you.....

i am concerned with clean cycling, not your country per se, i do applaud your country's anti-doping agency. you state actor babble, whilst ignoring armstrong's corrupting WELL known and DOCUMENTED actions, is exactly why i called you a classic apologist for his doping.

As to Armstrong and his past, I have known this stuff since I was a kid at an age and in a position where I had to make my own decisions about these issues then for myself and in regard to the sport. I have more immediate grudges to focus on.

more deflective babble. i directly pointed to your hypocrisy about armstrong's role in the global anti-doping process and all you can say is you have other priorities ? you talk about other priorities in life whilst posting madly (just today dozens of posts) about usada ?

Being angry about Armstrong 24/7 isn't going to hasten his ruin or comeuppance

being angry about usada is not going hasten its ruin or comeuppance (what ever this smart word means).

I find there are more pervasive things to be concerned about and don't have lot of personal investment in this situation to lug around with me.

then stop and have peace after people disagreed with you. but obviously it did not happen b/c you are don't follow your own advice

I try to minimize the ressentiment in my life. Give it a whirl.

i could not care less what you do in your personal life.

As to Armstrong personally

and am only interested in armstrong doping and this is perfectly on topic here.

 

[patricknd]

this is a classic, not even as sophisticated as the author tries to spin it, a classic position of a doping apologist for armstrong. all deflection and obfuscation elements are right there

the indignation about usada process whilst no comments about the obvious doper exploiting the anti-doping process and the system. OKKey....why don't the apologists, instead of whining about the usada involvement with the fed, exploit the armstrong involvement with and corrupting the UCI to cover up his positives ? why are you not feeling 'somewhat disturbing' about that ? why are you not feeling disturbed that no one else (given the known record) attempted to corrupt the governing cycling body ?

You have plenty there to be disturbed but somehow only the obvious doper's rights and ad the ad process imperfections are in the apologist's sights...why is that ?

I think chewbaccad said it best up thread, that the fewer the rights of the accused the more uneasy we become with the process. There are many of us that believe that the rights of the accused to the most robust of defenses is sacred, regardless of the defendant and the crimes committed. Separating our emotions is nearly impossible at times, but anything less is the selling of our beliefs and lowers us to the level of those we judge, heinous as their crimes may be.

 

[python]

Thanks for the link. Based on what I read, I'd like clarification on one of the current claims about him testing positive in 1999 for corticosteroids. Did the drug test only show trace amounts of a corticosteroid in his urine, but not enough to result in an official positive test? That's the way I read the articles from 1999. I understand that he provided a backdated TUE for this.

Yes, I realize that having trace amounts could be due to doping. But, I think there is difference between only having trace amounts and having enough to confirm a positive test. Sorry if I am rehashing history for many of you...But, many of us point out that he tested positive in 1999, but the articles published in 1999 don't appear to align with that. Please clarify things for me.

1999 was the first year the test for corticosteroids was introduced.

it was introduced in secret (that is, few outside of the anti-doping establishment knew about the novel test)

there was no threshold then. . any amount, just like the clenbuterol today, was a positive. this is typical for a substance not fully studied in terms of excretion bio-kinetics at the introduction of a new test.

later, however, the rules evolved to distinguish between the therapeutic, topical and inhaling routes of administration of various corticosteroids...

 

[Cal_Joe]

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

That did not happen in Landis, but as I posted upthread, my interpretation of the USADA Protocol is that testimony by affidavit can happen. Can you cite anything that says it can not happen?

 

[MarkvW]

Armstrong's federal case is unlikely to go anywhere.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the process in Lance's case. Lance is just another rich whining athlete who got caught.

This isn't about fairness in the procedure. Lance wants to abort the procedure. Lance doesn't want to be subject to the procedure.

If this were about fairness, Lance would engage in the USADA procedure and would THEN appeal.

This isn't about fairness. Lance doesn't want a fair process. Lance wants to kill the process and suppress the facts.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Of course. But he was detained the last time he enterted. If he refused to answer questions then he'll be arrested.....

Arrested for what? By whom? I obviously sound like a broken record at this point, but hoggy, please stop making stuff up.

Or maybe my posts like this are a waste of electrons, as pretty much everyone here just nods their head and says, yep, another hoggy post.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm curious and a little confused...so Johan wants arbitration, presumably private, but wondering how this might (or might not) be beneficial to Lance's case.
Are Johan's attorneys distinctly on their own course and separate from Lance's show , or are they trying to cooperatively work for the good of both cases? I would think that Armstrong is trying to make sure he controls it all for his benefit.

I'm overthinking everything and driving myself crazy. Any thoughts from the forum legal team?

 

[Epicycle]

One thing I haven't seen anybody mention is included in the same paragraph of the amended complaint that includes the assertion about witnesses testifying by affidavit. That is:

(page 13, 44)
Defendants’ have, in past proceedings, permitted a witness to refuse to answer questions on cross-examination from an athlete’s attorney, and yet denied respondent’s motion to strike his testimony.


This seems to be an allusion to Lemond's testimony in the Landis hearing. That was the day Greg testified that Floyd's confidant tried to intimidate Greg to keep him from testifying. After that, Floyd's attorney tried to ask Greg about statements he had made about Lance, but was blocked by Greg's attorney (who was in the audience) surely because of the pending Trek litigation. Floyd's attorney then pleaded with the arbitration panel to strike all of Greg's testimony, claiming that his right to cross examination was curtailed. It was a mess.

I can see this kind of thing happening if Lance goes to arbitration. His attorney's are going to try to get rough with the witnesses about things that are very tangential to this doping case. I'm no legal expert but it seems like that kind of thing can lead to much more chaos in an arbitration hearing than in civil court.

 

[MarkvW]

One thing I haven't seen anybody mention is included in the same paragraph of the amended complaint that includes the assertion about witnesses testifying by affidavit. That is:

(page 13, 44)
Defendants’ have, in past proceedings, permitted a witness to refuse to answer questions on cross-examination from an athlete’s attorney, and yet denied respondent’s motion to strike his testimony.


This seems to be an allusion to Lemond's testimony in the Landis hearing. That was the day Greg testified that Floyd's confidant tried to intimidate Greg to keep him from testifying. After that, Floyd's attorney tried to ask Greg about statements he had made about Lance, but was blocked by Greg's attorney (who was in the audience) surely because of the pending Trek litigation. Floyd's attorney then pleaded with the arbitration panel to strike all of Greg's testimony, claiming that his right to cross examination was curtailed. It was a mess.

I can see this kind of thing happening if Lance goes to arbitration. His attorney's are going to try to get rough with the witnesses about things that are very tangential to this doping case. I'm no legal expert but it seems like that kind of thing can lead to much more chaos in an arbitration hearing than in civil court.

Armstrong is whining that bad things might happen in his proceedings. Lawsuits usually require a person to prove that the bad thing has actually happened.

 

[hiero2]

I'm curious and a little confused...so Johan wants arbitration, presumably private, . . .

My understanding is that the arbritration hearings are public.

 

[Cal_Joe]

My understanding is that the arbritration hearings are public.

Up to the person that USADA has leveled charges against. All detailed in the USADA protocol - the link to that document has been posted many times in this thread, but you can go to their website and take a peek.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Up to the person that USADA has leveled charges against. All detailed in the USADA protocol - the link to that document has been posted many times in this thread, but you can go to their website and take a peek.

Links to USADA and WADA documents posted in the clinic "All Things Legal" sticky - hopefully that way they won't get buried in a zillion post thread.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9234

 

[Cal_Joe]

Armstrong is whining that bad things might happen in his proceedings. Lawsuits usually require a person to prove that the bad thing has actually happened.

Then there would be no need for restraining orders for any eventuality. I believe US law does permit restraining orders, but IANALA.

 

[MarkvW]

Then there would be no need for restraining orders for any eventuality. I believe US law does permit restraining orders, but IANALA.

There remain plenty of good occasions for the use of restraining orders. This case just is not one of them. Lance Armstrong is abusing the process.

 

[TubularBills]

Thanks for the link. Based on what I read, I'd like clarification on one of the current claims about him testing positive in 1999 for corticosteroids. Did the drug test only show trace amounts of a corticosteroid in his urine, but not enough to result in an official positive test? That's the way I read the articles from 1999. I understand that he provided a backdated TUE for this.

Yes, I realize that having trace amounts could be due to doping. But, I think there is difference between only having trace amounts and having enough to confirm a positive test. Sorry if I am rehashing history for many of you...But, many of us point out that he tested positive in 1999, but the articles published in 1999 don't appear to align with that. Please clarify things for me.

Discussed Here:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=928190

In 1999 the UCI developed a new test for glucocorticosteroids and Lance was one of the first to test positive at the Tour. The UCI let him invent a fake, backdated, TUE and said the amount was below the limit. If you refer to the UCI banned list from 1999 to present glucocorticosteroids, the class of drug to which covers triamcinolone acétonide, do not have a threshold level. They are banned outright.

Just like the extremely minute presence of clenbuterol that sanctioned Contador.

Triamcinolone acétonide is not a synthetic steroid that required the t/e ratio initial test to further test if the sample contained a synthetic steroid, a la Floyd Landis.

Armstrong tested positive, the UCI covered it up.

 

[Cal_Joe]

There remain plenty of good occasions for the use of restraining orders. This case just is not one of them. Lance Armstrong is abusing the process.

That may be true, but the process exists. I prefer to let a judge comment on any issues of abuse.

Also, my understanding is that LA did not refile the TRO - is that correct?

 

[MarkvW]

That may be true, but the process exists. I prefer to let a judge comment on any issues of abuse.

Also, my understanding is that LA did not refile the TRO - is that correct?

Yeah, he didn't refile the TRO, he'll be asking for a preliminary injunction before the 30 days is up.

I'm comfortable calling this abuse, because that's what it is.

 

[D-Queued]

One thing I haven't seen anybody mention is included in the same paragraph of the amended complaint that includes the assertion about witnesses testifying by affidavit. That is:

(page 13, 44)
Defendants’ have, in past proceedings, permitted a witness to refuse to answer questions on cross-examination from an athlete’s attorney, and yet denied respondent’s motion to strike his testimony.


This seems to be an allusion to Lemond's testimony in the Landis hearing. That was the day Greg testified that Floyd's confidant tried to intimidate Greg to keep him from testifying. After that, Floyd's attorney tried to ask Greg about statements he had made about Lance, but was blocked by Greg's attorney (who was in the audience) surely because of the pending Trek litigation. Floyd's attorney then pleaded with the arbitration panel to strike all of Greg's testimony, claiming that his right to cross examination was curtailed. It was a mess.

I can see this kind of thing happening if Lance goes to arbitration. His attorney's are going to try to get rough with the witnesses about things that are very tangential to this doping case. I'm no legal expert but it seems like that kind of thing can lead to much more chaos in an arbitration hearing than in civil court.

Yes, we should all be afraid of Lance's lawyers if this goes to arbitration.

They are very scary people.

They might cross-examine people like Mike Anderson or Frankie Andreu or even Betsy. They might even try and request Travis Tygart as a witness. They might ask Stephanie McIlvain about the hospital room. They could even try and use Bill Stapleton as a rebuttal witness.

SCREEECH>>>> Deja vu all over again.

Didn't this already happen in the SCA Arbitration? Nobody turned into a zombie then.

Ok, carry on.

Dave.

 

[PedalPusher]

I'm BACK! What did I miss?