USADA - Armstrong

[Dr. Maserati]

The Judge can only judge on what’s placed in front of him. He is not authorized to use secondary sources for his decision other than precedent.

He could read the Clinic and save himself a good two days of reading though.

To be fair he sounds like he would enjoy the laugh - especially the gifs.

 

[Thasp Blog]

Additional comment from the International Tennis Federation (ITF) today:

"In accordance with Article 15.4 of the World Anti-Doping Code, and further to their longstanding commitment to protect the integrity of the sport of tennis and the health of all of the participants in the sport, the stakeholders to the Tennis Anti-Doping Programme recognise and respect USADA's decision, and will take all steps available to them to enforce and give effect to that decision in the sport of tennis, including (without limitation) not permitting Dr Garcia del Moral to participate in any capacity in, and denying him accreditation for or access to, any sanctioned tennis event or activity."

"Players are asked to take careful note of the above when considering who to seek treatment, guidance and advice from in the future."

http://www.itftennis.com/antidoping/news/pressrelease.asp?articleid=23575

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It has taken me a little while to see the forest, but it appears that the UCI didn't intervene and become a party because it is clear that Sparks is not friendly to their little shell game, and they would rather have Armstrong go down in flames there, and then file a suit in another court that might be more friendly. Sparks isn't going to determine if the UCI or USADA is going to arbitrate, so the issue should be preserved because the UCI was never made a party, and thus they may file a suit asking for a decision on that point. They are playing legal games now, that is all that is happening from what I see.

 

[Race Radio]

After reading the affidavit, here is my take:



I think people are missing the forest for the trees. Sparks asked for DETAIL about why HIS COURT should have jurisdiction. This ****ing contest about who should hear the arbitration is NOT what he asked for AT ALL. Who has the right to hear the arbitration has NOTHING to do with whether a Federal District Court of the United States of America has the right to get involved in a process that contractually has an arbitration agreement. And all this affidavit did was help PROVE that there is a legally arbitration agreement with SOMEONE. That being the case, Spark's job is pretty ease IMO. Armstrong's attorneys just said that arbitration somewhere is valid, thus the Federal courts are not the place for any of this.

If the UCI wants to hear the case, they need to intervene or file their own suit...and my guess is that once Sparks dismisses, that is exactly what they will do.

Bingo

Smack down coming. stay tuned

 

[DirtyWorks]

McQuaid's last minute about-face could also be read as extreme reluctance - as something he didn't want to do because he knew it would look bad, but did anyway because he was given no choice. Those two letters he sent were pretty much throwing his lot, and that of his organization, in on the LA side.

The question remains, what does Armstrong have on Pat and Hein such that Pat had to throw something so weak in? It's got to be pretty big.

You guys are a whole lot more optimistic than I when it comes to this. I hope you are right.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Bingo

Smack down coming. stay tuned

Ooh!
Can you expound on that please?

 

[MacRoadie]

It has taken me a little while to see the forest, but it appears that the UCI didn't intervene and become a party because it is clear that Sparks is not friendly to their little shell game, and they would rather have Armstrong go down in flames there, and then file a suit in another court that might be more friendly. Sparks isn't going to determine if the UCI or USADA is going to arbitrate, so the issue should be preserved because the UCI was never made a party, and thus they may file a suit asking for a decision on that point. They are playing legal games now, that is all that is happening from what I see.

And then WADA steps up to the plate.

As we have seen yesterday with the ITF statement on Del Moral, IF's are willing and ready to respect the USADA sanctions. If the UCI sues to claim jurisdiction and vacate the USADA sanctions, it will have ramifications throughout sport.

WADA cannot allow that to happen. It undermines (obliviates?) the power granted to the national ADAs under the Code and frees any signatory to the Code to do whatever the **** they like.

Signatories were required to agree to abide by the WADA Code. It isn't up to WADA to review the individual laws of every single signatory IF to determine if there is conflicting jurisdictional language. Otherwise, an IF could simply amend their laws to "supercede" the WADA Code at their discretion.

 

[Race Radio]

Ooh!
Can you expound on that please?

No.....but expect lots of billable hours for all involved the next few hours, days and week.

Don't worry. I have the pacer account fired up and read to post

 

[Kennf1]

And yet Shawn Farrell, USAC Technical Director, signed an affidavit filed by Armstrong just this morning, providing support for the Armstrong/UCI claim of UCI jurisdiction.

No comment, but we'll sign your affidavit Lance...

It's bizarre they're just now filing that, three days after the response deadline. You'd think they would have had it ready at least for their mistaken Monday deadline. Perhaps they didn't think it was necessary until WADA issued its statement yesterday? Regardless, Sparks can toss it in the trash.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It has taken me a little while to see the forest, but it appears that the UCI didn't intervene and become a party because it is clear that Sparks is not friendly to their little shell game, and they would rather have Armstrong go down in flames there, and then file a suit in another court that might be more friendly. Sparks isn't going to determine if the UCI or USADA is going to arbitrate, so the issue should be preserved because the UCI was never made a party, and thus they may file a suit asking for a decision on that point. They are playing legal games now, that is all that is happening from what I see.

It has been some interesting months. Being here at the Olympics gives a person a better perspective on cheating. The PED’s use is off the charts when you just open your eyes.
Some guy on twitter made mention to me about this place being a “small echo chamber”. When you take into account what is happening within the sport of cycling and what is happening between these anti-doping organizations and the cycling union’s and associations it makes a person wonder what is really going on behind closed doors. Whose money is greasing the machine?
I sure hope all my man-hours (no offense ladies) on the iterwebs provides some fruitful crops……..

 

[MarkvW]

I think that Armstrong may have proven too much.

USADA works under contract for USAC. UCI has now said that USADA is acting without authority, and now USAC is saying that USADA is acting without authority.

Assume, for purposes of argument, that USADA has gone rogue (as UCI/USAC assert).

Clearly USAC has been wronged. Rogue USADA has breached its contract with USAC. USAC could sue Rogue USADA and make Rogue USADA stop. But they haven't.

Lance has no contract with Rogue USADA. Rogue USADA has no legal duty to refrain from judging Lance. In America, anybody is free to judge anybody else.

How is Rogue USADA wrongfully harming Lance if the UCI and USAC are refusing to recognize Rogue USADA's actions?

Lance has just established that his lawsuit has no merit.

 

[DirtyWorks]

And then WADA steps up to the plate.

As we have seen yesterday with the ITF statement on Del Moral, IF's are willing and ready to respect the USADA sanctions. If the UCI sues to claim jurisdiction and vacate the USADA sanctions, it will have ramifications throughout sport.

It's good press for the ITU. Del Moral has been named and shamed and hasn't yet been attached to a Tennis player of any substance. At best, it's some pontificating. If the story was Federer/Dopevich/Williams Sisters actually got a public positive, then I think we'd see the federation behave exactly like the UCI.

 

[python]

It's bizarre they're just now filing that, three days after the response deadline. You'd think they would have had it ready at least for their mistaken Monday deadline. Perhaps they didn't think it was necessary until WADA issued its statement yesterday? Regardless, Sparks can toss it in the trash.

Bingo. I am also very puzzled by the info. A couple days back I posted that Herman complained in his affidavit that USAC legal folks were unavailable when Herman tried to contact them before the deadline.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=976080&postcount=6684

 

[frenchfry]

It appears to be an assumption here that UCI's attempt to obtain jurisdiction is with the unique objective of stopping any action against Armstrong.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And then WADA steps up to the plate.

As we have seen yesterday with the ITF statement on Del Moral, IF's are willing and ready to respect the USADA sanctions. If the UCI sues to claim jurisdiction and vacate the USADA sanctions, it will have ramifications throughout sport.

WADA cannot allow that to happen. It undermines (obliviates?) the power granted to the national ADAs under the Code and frees any signatory to the Code to do whatever the **** they like.

Signatories were required to agree to abide by the WADA Code. It isn't up to WADA to review the individual laws of every single signatory IF to determine if there is conflicting jurisdictional language. Otherwise, an IF could simply amend their laws to "supercede" the WADA Code at their discretion.

I agree, but I don't think that will have anything to do with whether the UCI files a suit regarding their right to hear the arbitration. They have protected Armstrong all along, and they certainly have a vested interest to continue doing so as it sounds like there may be a smoking gun, or a ****ed-off Armstrong who is willing to show everyone where the bodies are buried.

That being the case, reading Farrell's affidavit (he was answering questions posted by Hermen, not making statements), it seems apparent that Armstrong's attorneys are setting up the argument that the licenses applied to prior to 2004 do not include language that ARMSTRONG UNDERSTOOD bound him to submission to the process of the USADA as they were not included on the language of the license until 2004. If the evidence being used is primarily from before 2004, then there is a case gets sticky because the license is still a two party contract (an adhesion contract at that), so forcing retroactive provisions on a party is VERY sticky.

Also from the Farrell affidavit, if both bodies have an arbitration process that runs concurrently today (an argument set up in the affidavit), but one of them did not have a process that existed at a certain point that includes evidence of that particular time, then an argument can be made that the entity that had the continual arbitration process throughout the time frame of the violations is in a better position to conduct the case against the athlete.

Please don't read my comments as saying that the USADA doesn't have a compelling case, because as they telegraphed earlier, there appears to be a conflict of interest involving the UCI in the evidence they have obtained. That being the case, if they are a party to the process in some way, then they would have NO legitimate standing to conduct an arbitration. That is why they asked for a 3rd party to decide the case. Their problem there is that there is NO PROCEDURE ANYWHERE for that body. That body doesn't exist, it isn't referred to anywhere in anything, there are no guidelines for setting it up, or determining who is on it. Ohhh pobrecito.

I am spitballing here, so don't take anything I write as being fully comprehensive, I am just trying to think through, and this is how I do that. I just start throwing sh*t on the table and digging through it to see what it ate for breakfast. The worst thing you can do in trying to determine anything legally is get married to the sure validity of YOUR argument. Trying to figure out the arguments of your opposition is more important than making you own in some ways.

But the more I dig through it, the more it looks like extracting this from the USADA is going to be very difficult, but that will not stop the process from being painful and possibly long.

I just wish Lance would admit his doping and be done with all of it.

 

[MacRoadie]

It's good press for the ITU. Del Moral has been named and shamed and hasn't yet been attached to a Tennis player of any substance. At best, it's some pontificating. If the story was Federer/Dopevich/Williams Sisters actually got a public positive, then I think we'd see the federation behave exactly like the UCI.

That is very true, but now they have set the precedent. Regardless, it's not the who and why of the particular IF, but that WADA can't allow for the USADA sanctions to now be rescinded.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Bingo. I am also very puzzled by the info. A couple days back I posted that Herman complained in his affidavit that USAC legal folks were unavailable when Herman tried to contact them before the deadline.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=976080&postcount=6684

Trying to placate Lance but slipped up on timing? ...or late on purpose?....a weak attempt or maybe a red herring?

 

[DirtyWorks]

How is Rogue USADA wrongfully harming Lance if the UCI and USAC are refusing to recognize Rogue USADA's actions?

Best case scenario if this happens is Hein gets a call from Jacques Rogge's office to stop their nonsense and accept USADA's actions. AFAICT, the IOC needs WADA to appear legitimate and powerful, such that an Armstrong penalty is a given.

Mac Roadie, I agree with what you wrote. My pessimism gets in the way sometimes.

 

[MacRoadie]

Trying to placate Lance but slipped up on timing? ...or late on purpose?....a weak attempt or maybe a red herring?

I think more importaantly, if you read Armstrong's motion, it sounds like the affidavit has been in the works for some time, long before Tim Johnson's horse****:

“USA Cycling has a longstanding policy of not commenting publicly on doping disputes,” Johnson wrote in an email while in London to attend the Olympic Games. “We also have a policy of not commenting publicly on pending litigation out of respect for the parties involved and the judicial process. As a result, we do not intend to issue any statements or respond to questions about the pending Armstrong/USADA litigation concerning management of doping control in federal court in Austin, especially when we are not even a party to the action.”

USA Cycling has no comment regarding rift between USADA and UCI

However, we will sign an affidavit in support of someone who IS a party to the action.

 

[MacRoadie]

USADA gives Marti a second chance at arbitration.

United States Postal Service Pro-Cycling Team Trainer, Marti, Requests Arbitration

USADA believes that anyone charged with a doping violation should have the opportunity to have a full, fair, public hearing in accordance with the rules where all of the evidence will be presented and witness testimony will be given under oath in front of an independent group of arbitrators who ultimately decide the case. In an effort to ensure Mr. Martí has the opportunity to fully exercise his rights under the rules; USADA has agreed to move forward with arbitration in Mr. Martí’s case. In accordance with the rules, Mr. Martí’s previously announced sanction will be suspended pending the outcome of the case.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

Tim Johnson's horse****

Is that a ******* child of Steve Johnson and Tim Herman?

I'm guessing the rider Tim Johnson doesn't want anything to do with this.

 

[the big ring]

This takes "fair / due process" to another level. USADA are bending over backwards, repeatedly, for these guys. Incredible.

Microchip needs to get a wriggle one, there's toons waiting here

 

[MarkvW]

Best case scenario if this happens is Hein gets a call from Jacques Rogge's office to stop their nonsense and accept USADA's actions. AFAICT, the IOC needs WADA to appear legitimate and powerful, such that an Armstrong penalty is a given.

Should Lance's lawsuit get dismissed (and I think it will), the only avenue left to prevent arbitration of the USADA charges is a USAC lawsuit against USADA. That can't be what USAC wants. It is what Farm is working for, I'm sure.

 

[Deagol]

United States Postal Service Pro-Cycling Team Trainer, Marti, Requests Arbitration

Now this is interesting. Someone from outside the US accepts USADA juristiction, but not Lance. Also, gotta wonder what facts will come out of this. Did Lance's camp not "take care of him" as with Floyd Landis?

Edit: a Contador connection was brought up in another thread (Marti connection with Contador)

 

[BroDeal]

Great...Armstrong will bury the charges in the UCI/USA Cycling unless the IOC steps in, and right now all the IOC big wigs are on a two week binge of drinking and partying.