USADA - Armstrong

[mewmewmew13]

What might happen in the next few days?
This seems as if it might be on a bit of a precipice .....
Too much out there simmering. It feels like someone's lid is going to blow.


btw Bro I like the Crazy Landis point on the map

 

[Koba80]

"By our count, of the twenty-one (21) podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005, only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation. Yet only a single one of these riders had a positive test with the UCI. The rest of the podium finishers were implicated by law enforcement investigations."

Sorry for Clinic ignorance - who is the one other than Lancelot?

 

[Ferminal]

Sorry for Clinic ignorance - who is the one other than Lancelot?

Escartin I guess.

Rumsas and Vino were both positive tests though - so only one was a UCI control.

 

[Random Direction]

Are there legal consequences if Lance had Pat and Hein threaten witnesses with retribution? Having another party do ones nasty work is a mobster technique.

Speaking of dealing with mobsters, if the Feds aren't done with their earlier investigation, could there be wiretaps catching direction for intimidation, etc.?

 

[dbrower]

What is there to preclude Tygart (short of dropping the case), while he still enjoys discovery, to compel his co-defendant USADA to produce documents, to subpoena witnesses, take depositions, etc. and at the very least get a whole load of undesireable and damaging information out in to the public realm?
.

What gets in the way is the depth of his pocketbook. Tygart can't fund such an expedition on his own, or even really with USADA money. He'd need to find some deeper pockets

-dB

 

[thehog]

What gets in the way is the depth of his pocketbook. Tygart can't fund such an expedition on his own, or even really with USADA money. He'd need to find some deeper pockets

-dB

Funding what?

USADA uses in-house legal counsel. Payroll is all it costs.

 

[MacRoadie]

Funding what?

USADA uses in-house legal counsel. Payroll is all it costs.

We're talking about Tygart, the individual, as a co-defendant...

And I agree that funding becomes an issue, but with intimte knowledge of who knows what and what data/documents are available, carefully chosen discovery could go a long way in the public realm.

Regardless, I think WADA steps in long before that happens. They can't afford to have USADA today, then who knows what ADA that will be challenged next, or which IF decides it doesn't need to acknowledge an ADA or WADA.

I'm not too sure the IOC wants federations wandering off the reservation at will either...sets a bad precedent. Given the capriciousness with which the IOC dumps cycling events, I'm also not too sure the UCI wouldn't get thrown under the IOC buc.

 

[dbrower]

Funding what?

USADA uses in-house legal counsel. Payroll is all it costs.

Depositions cost, even with in-house council. Reporter, travel etc.

-dB

 

[Cerberus]

Escartin I guess.

Rumsas and Vino were both positive tests though - so only one was a UCI control.

Escartin is a possibility, but that isn't even true as far as I can tell, he was "investigated in case against Conconi". http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=10163. No one else fits the bill either though, so it seems USADA just isn't counting one of the investigations I am.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

"This is particularly worrisome in this case, because it is said to be based on witness statements only." Said McQuaid.

I wonder what Pat thinks about the fact Jerry Sandusky was convicted entirely on witness statements only?

 

[Hugh Januss]

"This is particularly worrisome in this case, because it is said to be based on witness statements only." Said McQuaid.

I wonder what Pat thinks about the fact Jerry Sandusky was convicted entirely on witness statements only?

Wouldn't he have to actually read something to know that?

 

[Ferminal]

"This is particularly worrisome in this case, because it is said to be based on witness statements only." Said McQuaid.

I wonder what Pat thinks about the fact Jerry Sandusky was convicted entirely on witness statements only?

Witness testimony, and the bio passport data the UCI ignored?

 

[BroDeal]

What gets in the way is the depth of his pocketbook. Tygart can't fund such an expedition on his own, or even really with USADA money. He'd need to find some deeper pockets

-dB

I tried to raise this issue in the "LeMond, Master of Puppets" thread, but LeMond paid a large amount of money to gather information for his suit against Trek. If he handed that over to the USADA then it would be a great boon to the USADA. It would save a lot of money. And LeMond had the benefit of the power of subpoena, something that the USADA does not have.

 

[thehog]

Depositions cost, even with in-house council. Reporter, travel etc.

-dB

Which is factored in on a per year basis. This is what they do for a living. Every year. Also where are they travelling to? The moon? There's only one hearing. Then maybe CAS.

Maybe they have to pay the witnesses?

 

[Hugh Januss]

How could they not be?

Pat may have really shot himself in the foot this time. Can you imagine the reaction? Last I looked, the US didn't like anyone telling it how to do anything. Kind of fervent about that. USADA represents the US of A. USA Cycling same thing.

If Pat forces USA Cycling, and threatens it in any way, that might just be the ticket for JV's new league. Pat will force the IOC to act, and the IOC can hardly come down on the side of the sport's biggest ever cheat.

We might finally have a real opportunity to get away from this circus.

Bye Bye UCI.

Dave.

I hope you are right, but isn't USAC run by some guys who have as much to lose as Pat and LA and Verdruggin?

 

[Big Doopie]

mcquaid & verdruggen are not just corrupt. they are criminals.

travis tygart is truly a hero for sport.

 

[MacRoadie]

Which is factored in on a per year basis. This is what they do for a living. Every year. Also where are they travelling to? The moon? There's only one hearing. Then maybe CAS.

Maybe they have to pay the witnesses?

Again, my point was in regard to Travis Tygart as an individual, not as the CEO of USADA. He has been sued as an individual. My point was to what damage he could do, even if the UCI managed somehow to stifle USADA through the IOC/USOC/USAC.

If he we to undertake discovery as an idividual named defendant, independant of USADA, Armstrong and the UCI would have no leverage over him. He wouldn't, though, enjoy the resources of USADA.

If he did do it, he would certainly run the risk of expending significant funds, unless the discovery was very surgical (and likely didn't include dpositions).

 

[Berzin]

We are not even in the beginning stages of this whole process, and it's mind-boggling how crazy it's gotten so far.

I hope people now realize the extent Armstrong and the UCI are taking to slam this case into the ground. I6t reeks of conspiracy and guilt like nothing else.

This is unprecedented.

 

[biker jk]

Well the UCI's reaction just highlights why they should play no role in drug testing whatsoever. The blatant and corrupting conflict of interest has been called by USADA.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I hope you are right, but isn't USAC run by some guys who have as much to lose as Pat and LA and Verdruggin?

Exactly. I read the letter as "pass everything over to our American counterparts at USAC and run along."

Cycling can't break the bio-passport facade for the IOC. It threatens much bigger sports if they do. If this issue continues on like this, the IOC will intervene on both ends of the issue. Get USOC to have a 'come to Jesus' with USADA and kick Hein's program down a notch or three.

I think, at minimum, they are setting up a scenario where the UCI via USAC claims USADA's AAA results are non-binding throwing up a bunch of appeals and other nonsense to delay, or minimize the damage to the point even half-interested cyclists will only remember is it's not 100% sorted out years from now.

This could end as unsatisfactorily as the Federal Case. I think the UCI/USAC has plenty of options left because, as this letter clearly shows, they make the rules up as they go along anyway.

 

[frenchfry]

This is big, is this the first time an anti-doping body has publicly stated the UCI has no interest in enforcing anti-doping measures? Maybe AFLD did in the past?

Indeed the AFLD has gone on record as saying the UCI has given favorable treatment to an Armstrong team. I believe it was in 2009 with Astana but I might be wrong. If I remember correctly they wrote a report after the TDF detailing the compromising incidents.

Fat Pat and Verdruggen must be desperate, I wouldn't have thought they would so blatently throw all reason to the wind to side with the sociopath, they have a lot to lose - either way I guess.

What is crazy is that they are claiming jurisdiction when clearly all other doping cases are run by the national instances. Their proposition to name an "independant" review board to decide whether or not to pursue the Armstrong case makes me laugh.

The UCI as we currently know it should be taken down and soon.

 

[sniper]

Which is factored in on a per year basis. This is what they do for a living. Every year. Also where are they travelling to? The moon? There's only one hearing. Then maybe CAS.

Maybe they have to pay the witnesses?

10 chars

 

[spalco]

This is funny: non-Texas law firm explaining how Armstrong's lawyers blew the 14-day filing deadline under local federal rules in Texas.


http://www.bouldercriminallawadviso...why-strict-compliance-with-local-is-critical/

Holy ****. Armstrong's lawyers must have been sweating **** and blood that evening. Missing a deadline is pretty much the worst thing that can happen in legal matters, impossible to justify to your clients...

6. Counsel for the parties have not spoken concerning what counsel for the Plaintiff
styles a “consent motion.”
7. Rather, at 4:18 p.m. eastern time on Thursday, August 2, 2012, the undersigned
sent an email to Plaintiff’s counsel requesting courtesy copies via email of Plaintiff’s filings in
response to USADA’s motion to dismiss which were due on Thursday, August 2, 2012. (An
accurate record of this email is set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.)
8. At 5:59 p.m. eastern time on Thursday, August 2, 2012, Mr. Breen responded via
email that he believed the Plaintiff’s filings in response to USADA’s motion to dismiss were not
due until Monday. (An accurate record of this email is set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.)
9. At 6:58 p.m. eastern time on Thursday, August 2, 2012, counsel for USADA
responded to Mr. Breen with a discussion of the Local Rules demonstrating that Plaintiff’s
response to USADA’s motion to dismiss was, in fact, due on Thursday, August 2, 2012, and
stating:
We filed our motion well in advance of the deadline to answer so that it could be
fully briefed prior to the hearing date set by the Court. Your planned untimely
filing would greatly shorten the time we have to file a reply brief.
Case 1:12-cv-00606-SS Document 40 Filed 08/03/12 Page 2 of 6
3
Accordingly, I would ask that you please file your response brief no later than the
5 pm close of business tomorrow – a day after your response was due.
(An accurate record of this email is set forth in the attached Exhibit “A”.)
10. At 8:59 p.m. eastern time on Thursday, August 2, 2012, Mr. Breen sent an email
to the undersigned requesting that USADA agree to an extension of time until Monday, August
6, 2012, for Plaintiff to file his response to USADA’s motion to dismiss and for the first time
reciting as the reasons therefore a July 13, 2012, letter from UCI produced by USADA on July
26, 2012 (Mr. Breen’s email mistakenly states the production was on July 27, 2012) and an
alleged difficulty in obtaining affidavits from witnesses in London. Mr. Breen’s email gave
USADA an hour to respond, purported to base the extension request on matters other than
Plaintiff’s mistake concerning his response deadline, and was not coupled with a phone call to
USADA’s counsel. (An accurate record of this email is set forth in the attached Exhibit “B”.)
11. At 9:57 p.m. eastern time on Thursday, August 2, 2012, Mr. Breen left a
voicemail on the undersigned’s cell phone asking for a return call but without specifying a
reason for his call or a time for a response.
12. At 11:30 p.m. eastern (10:30 C.D.T.) Plaintiff’s counsel filed what was styled as a
“Consent Motion for Extension of Time.”

eta: the e-mails between Armstrong's lawyers and the USADA at the end of the USADA's filing are hilarious too, great read.
http://www.bouldercriminallawadvisor.com/files/2012/08/Lance-v.-USADA-USADA-RESPONSE-w-Exhibits.pdf

eta2: damn, that UCI letter at the end of above link is embarassing, I'm almost speechless. No shame, no ****ing shame.

 

[the big ring]

UCI’s alleged conflict of interest
I will not dwell long on your allegations on this subject. We already heard them from another person who had to come back on his statements publicly and once again in court. We contest and reject these allegations which we feel denote a political intention against cycling and the UCI

Who was this other person?

 

[the big ring]

However, if USADA would not accept to entrust results management to an independent
person or body then we suggest that USADA and UCI submit the issue of jurisdiction for
results management to CAS.

Please let us know what USADA’s position is in thisrespect.
In the mean time and until further notice UCI denies USADA any authority to act or proceed
on the basis of ADR or any other rule of the UCI orotherwise on behalf of UCI and/or USA
Cycling.

We inform USA Cycling accordingly.
Now that UCI has been advised of the request for proceedings before AAA we inform also
AAA and the Respondents.
Yours sincerely,

Eesh. Can he do that!?

And even if he can, can't USADA continue under the WADA code, as signed by GOVERNMENTS?