USADA - Armstrong

[JPM London]

This has to be the nadir of the sport's existence. The absolute ugliest bottom. Unless of course the UCI succeeds in getting this shut down. That would be about all the lower it could go.

Someday people will reflect on these times as one of the darkest in the sporting history.

Not sure you're right on that last bit - or will be right for long at least. Hopefully the fallout from this case would be looking into similar issues in other sports and bringing the whole house of cards down on the whole lot... vvvvvv wishful thinking, I know


Am I the only one who wants to see Brian Dennehy reprise his usual role of "Bad Guy 1" in "Return of the crooked E: The Unshredded History of Epo"?

And don't we need some of those "Frank-Drebin-w-Burning-Building-in-Background-Saying-Nothing-to-See" pictures for all these UCI letters?

Pat might be correct when he says that Hein only ever said LA hadn't tested positive - he could've added of course the length of trouble both Hein and himself have gone to in defaming Landis when bringing allegations forward, but I guess that wouldn't really fit the story he's trying to tell. So annoying when your story's got nothing to do with truth...

 

[mastersracer]

He does if he wants to keep legislators off his back, as Americans tend to savor due process. One must keep the appearance of propriety active at all times if you're the leader of the agency. That's my view.

Perhaps he needs to appoint a spokesperson that represents the prosecutorial side of the agency and then he (Travis) can talk only about the agency as a whole, holding comment on certain aspects.

Tygart has a Pound-like PR problem. Pound eventually lost his battle.

Pound didn't have the smoking gun. Tygart needs to continually echo the theme that the case against Armstrong is overwhelming especially in light of McQuaid's power grab. If anything, he should leak some incriminating evidence against UCI if there's evidence of complicity. There's no other way to expose the fight over results management as a UCI cover up than stating clearly how strong the case is.

 

[BotanyBay]

Pound didn't have the smoking gun. Tygart needs to continually echo the theme that the case against Armstrong is overwhelming especially in light of McQuaid's power grab. If anything, he should leak some incriminating evidence against UCI if there's evidence of complicity. There's no other way to expose the fight over results management as a UCI cover up than stating clearly how strong the case is.

And that's exactly what the "case handler" PR guy should be doing, the lead lawyer, etc. But not Travis Tygart himself. Because Tygart also must represent the side of the agency that finds NO AAFs to exist in certain cases, etc.

Tygart needs to represent the mission of the agency, not the individual cases. That reeks of insane levels of bias.

 

[BroDeal]

This is when JV could make such a difference. If he talked publicly then Armstrong would become toxic. McQuaid's meddling would look even worse, so much so that the UCI would probably have to stand down and let the process play out within the rules.

 

[Kennf1]

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but here is a link to the response filed yesterday.

http://www.bouldercriminallawadviso...trong-v.-USADA-et-al-Pltf-Response-To-MTD.pdf

Armstrong also filed a motion to exceed the usual 20-page limit, because... this stuff is complicated.

 

[MarkvW]

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but here is a link to the response filed yesterday.

http://www.bouldercriminallawadviso...trong-v.-USADA-et-al-Pltf-Response-To-MTD.pdf

Armstrong also filed a motion to exceed the usual 20-page limit, because... this stuff is complicated.

Thanks very much.

 

[BroDeal]

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but here is a link to the response filed yesterday.

http://www.bouldercriminallawadviso...trong-v.-USADA-et-al-Pltf-Response-To-MTD.pdf

Armstrong also filed a motion to exceed the usual 20-page limit, because... this stuff is complicated.

I have not read it, but according to someone on another forum who did, Armstrong and the UCI are now pushing for a amnesty and truth and reconciliation period so he can get off without any sanctions.

 

[BotanyBay]

This is when JV could make such a difference. If he talked publicly then Armstrong would become toxic. McQuaid's meddling would look even worse, so much so that the UCI would probably have to stand down and let the process play out within the rules.

I've been saying this for years. Frankie: Hung out to dry (alone) by his peers. Betsy: Painted as his grudge-holding wife. We've had all of these people, alone, getting chopped-up by the Lance machine. But you think that perhaps one day, they could have all sat down together (JV, Frankie, Betsy, Tyler, Landis, Prentice Steffen, etc) and saved ourselves about 5 years of more headache.

But I think that JV really could have been a better friend to Frankie back when he really needed the backup. It sucks that he now runs a big, successful team in the TDF while Frankie was getting canned from jobs just for being honest.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

This is when JV could make such a difference. If he talked publicly then Armstrong would become toxic. McQuaid's meddling would look even worse, so much so that the UCI would probably have to stand down and let the process play out within the rules.

This is precisely when it would probably be a very bad idea for witnesses for USADA to start mouthing off in public about the evidence they are planning to give. I'm sure they've all been told to keep their cake holes shut about the Armstrong case.

 

[spalco]

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but here is a link to the response filed yesterday.

http://www.bouldercriminallawadviso...trong-v.-USADA-et-al-Pltf-Response-To-MTD.pdf

Armstrong also filed a motion to exceed the usual 20-page limit, because... this stuff is complicated.

Thank you.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I have not read it, but according to someone on another forum who did, Armstrong and the UCI are now pushing for a amnesty and truth and reconciliation period so he can get off without any sanctions.

If he say yes i doped, in all tours... well, i could live with it. Buy yourself a manison and get out of public

 

[BotanyBay]

This is precisely when it would probably be a very bad idea for witnesses for USADA to start mouthing off in public about the evidence they are planning to give. I'm sure they've all been told to keep their cake holes shut about the Armstrong case.

Sure... NOW. But Frankie was hung out to dry many years ago.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

I have not read it, but according to someone on another forum who did, Armstrong and the UCI are now pushing for a amnesty and truth and reconciliation period so he can get off without any sanctions.

Please give us the guy who saw the guy who saw the kink please.

 

[the big ring]

I have not read it, but according to someone on another forum who did, Armstrong and the UCI are now pushing for a amnesty and truth and reconciliation period so he can get off without any sanctions.

The words,

amnesty
truth
reconciliation

do not appear in that document.

USADA mentioned the truth and reconciliation amnesty business.

 

[BroDeal]

The words,

amnesty
truth
reconciliation

do not appear in that document.

USADA mentioned the truth and reconciliation amnesty business.

As I said, I have not read it. A guy on the Slowtwitch forum said he did.

That is a relief because I could see the USADA going for a truth an reconcilliation commision, and it ends up only benefitting Armstrong.

 

[spalco]

USADA mentioned the truth and reconciliation amnesty business.

Vaughters too.

 

[BroDeal]

This is precisely when it would probably be a very bad idea for witnesses for USADA to start mouthing off in public about the evidence they are planning to give. I'm sure they've all been told to keep their cake holes shut about the Armstrong case.

Armstrong is vulnerable. He is teetering on the edge. Now is the time to push him off the cliff. If people wait then there may not be the chance.

Armstrong is playing for time so he can employ as many strategies as possible, knowing he only needs one strategy to work.

 

[mewmewmew13]

As I said, I have not read it. A guy on the Slowtwitch forum said he did.

That is a relief because I could see the USADA going for a truth an reconcilliation commision, and it ends up only benefitting Armstrong.

Bro... you really need to stay off that tri forum...

it's affecting your outlook.

No way would Armstrong be the first one to benefit from an 'amnesty' angle, even if it was presented. He needs to pay for his deeds.

 

[BroDeal]

Bro... you really need to stay off that tri forum...

it's affecting your outlook.

No way would Armstrong be the first one to benefit from an 'amnesty' angle, even if it was presented. He needs to pay for his deeds.

I can easily see the UCI setting up a phony amnesty commission.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Bro... you really need to stay off that tri forum...

it's affecting your outlook.

No way would Armstrong be the first one to benefit from an 'amnesty' angle, even if it was presented. He needs to pay for his deeds.

\\

X2....

Like when Saddam Hussein was discovered in the dirt hole...." I am willing to negociate, God willing...." Amazing how reconciliation is most appealing when all other avenues are failing.

 

[BroDeal]

\\

X2....

Like when Saddam Hussein was discovered in the dirt hole...." I am willing to negociate, God willing...." Amazing how reconciliation is most appealing when all other avenues are failing.

We're ready to negotiate.

 

[Kennf1]

Armstrong and UCI are asserting the theory that UCI has exclusive jurisdiction because the charges relate to UCI tests. How does that argument work with the witness testimony about doping? What if this were a witness evidence case only, without any allegations of doping positives? If I were Sparks, that would certainly be one of the questions I'd pose to Armstrong's team.

UCI was sent a copy of the charging letter when it was issued, June 12.

On July 11, McQuaid said of the USADA investigation: "It is nothing to do with the UCI and we will wait and see what the eventual outcome is.” Two days later McQuaid sent his first letter to the USADA, raising the jurisdiction issue, an issue never raised with Landis or Hamilton.

The UCI issued yet another press release today, which is quoted at the end of this article:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...proceedings-against-Armstrong-and-others.aspx

In essence, McQuaid wants to establish an entirely new system to deal with these charges, one that has never existed before for any accused cyclist:

"This is the reason why the UCI, although being the competent authority for this case, wants the case to be given in the hands of a third results management authority independent both from UCI and USADA. That authority has to decide whether there is enough evidence for the case to proceed and for the respondents to have a case to answer, even if ultimately the merits of any disciplinary proceedings should be judged by an independent body as well."

 

[sniper]

Armstrong and UCI are asserting the theory that UCI has exclusive jurisdiction because the charges relate to UCI tests. How does that argument work with the witness testimony about doping? What if this were a witness evidence case only, without any allegations of doping positives? If I were Sparks, that would certainly be one of the questions I'd pose to Armstrong's team.

indeed you've pointed out a lovely paradox in UCI's argumentation.
claiming the case is only about witness testimony, and at the same time claiming jurisdiction because of of the UCI-test-based evidence.

i'd be massively surprised if the uci yields any success here.

 

[spalco]

I don't fully understand most of the arguments in Armstrong's recent brief (due to not really knowing **** about UCI regulations and such ), but I can confidently say that cutting it by 8 pages would not have been difficult without harming the arguments. I really don't like Armstrong's lawyers writing style. It's full of fluff and repititions. And I can't see the wisdom in annoying your judge like that - filing late and then over-long...

 

[BroDeal]

I don't fully understand most of the arguments in Armstrong's recent brief (due to not really knowing **** about UCI regulations and such ), but I can confidently say that cutting it by 8 pages would not have been difficult without harming the arguments. I really don't like Armstrong's lawyers writing style. It's full of fluff and repititions. And I can't see the wisdom in annoying your judge like that - filing late and then over-long...

Maybe they intended to use the weekend to cut the fluff.