USADA - Armstrong

Page 300 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Deagol said:
Hey, thanks for posting these legal docs, some very interesting reading.

RE: Steve Johnson.. I hope so. I have heard from a direct source that he was gloating after forcing the ACA (now defunct local Colorado/New Mexico/Wyoming independent racing organization) into folding into USAC because he threatened them with forming a rival local league to pull away race promoters and put the ACA out of business. Not doping related but still $%%^& :mad:
You are correct on that. He does not have a very great reputation around these parts ....pretty much seen as a true @******.
 

snackattack

BANNED
Mar 20, 2012
581
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Hey, everyone is entitled to not have any idea of what they are talking about. <- You are here.

...unless by "ends up in the Supreme Court" you mean "being denied Cert."...:rolleyes:

BTW, there is a wealth of information in the answer USADA gave today regarding the actual case law that surrounds arbitration decisions by SCOTUS and Appeals Courts. If you want less egg on your face (I don't think the egg bothers you at all), read up on it. You will stop making statements that are not based in reality or law.

No, not necessary.

The only ? in play ... is it legal or illegal and that route is the only way to find out for Lawstrong.

Same thing is coming to denouement in Europe shortly.

For instance that CAS is no court, isn't even arbitration format.

"No punishment without law" ... time to set the record straight.

Side effect to all of this is; it will strengthen Lawstrong his political ambition in the long run going through this process.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
snackattack said:
No, not necessary.

The only ? in play ... is it legal or illegal and that route is the only way to find out for Lawstrong.

Same thing is coming to denouement in Europa shortly.

For instance that CAS is no court, isn't even arbitration format.

"No punishment without law" ... time to set the record straight.

Side effect to all of this is; it will strengthen Lawstrong his political ambition in the long run going through this process.
Can't.....seem....to....put....my....finger....on....it....:rolleyes:
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
thehog said:
Steady on. USADA are offering CAS if all parties agree (including CAS) as a one off. It's not standard practice. You as well myself know USADA are only offering such an offer to corner the UCI/Armstrong argument.

What they are saying is: "arbritration one way or the other".

It's also to show the judge there spirit for fairness and to determine the correct result.

CAS by its own determination is a court of appeal.
Thats different from your earlier post.

thehog said:
Careful. This is not USADA v UCI.

It's USADA taking action against Armstrong. To get to CAS it has to go via the USADA hearing first.

CAS won't hear a claim on jurisdiction. They'll ask that the national federation to hear the case first before they arbitrate on the decision. CAS doesnt hear cases in the first instance. They are a court of appeal.

By which means the evidence is in public domain via the UsADA hearing and game over.
There is no appeal here - if all agree to it, CAS would be the arbitrators and their decision would be final.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
snackattack said:
No, not necessary.

The only ? in play ... is it legal or illegal and that route is the only way to find out for Lawstrong.

Same thing is coming to denouement in Europe shortly.

For instance that CAS is no court, isn't even arbitration format.

"No punishment without law" ... time to set the record straight.

Side effect to all of this is; it will strengthen Lawstrong his political ambition in the long run going through this process.
Only in the bizarre world of fanboydom does this exist...
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
snackattack said:
Nope no fanboy; just inside crossroad knowledge what's legally on the ropes at present.
You are right, Lance is legally on the ropes. He is in big trouble

It is surprising to see so much failure from him.....but this is what happens when your strategy is to keep doubling down, eventually it does not work
 

snackattack

BANNED
Mar 20, 2012
581
0
0
Race Radio said:
You are right, Lance is legally on the ropes. He is in big trouble

It is surprising to see so much failure from him.....but this is what happens when your strategy is to keep doubling down, eventually it does not work

Not at all got Lawstrong on his side.


No failure; as said to become an important politician Lawstrong needs to get past this cliff and make his name sound like gospel in DC.

Always hoped Kurt van de Wouwer to win the tdf, but he only managed to get second in the modern lets say clinic rendering.

1999: This was Armstrong's first winning year. If Armstrong cheated and all the dopers were dropped from the books, then rider 41 would've been in tenth: Steve de Wolf. Awesome name, Steve.
1. Daniele Nardello, 7th Place
2. Kurt van de Wouwer, 11th Place, +6:30
3. Stephane Heulot, 14th Place, +10:56
4. Benoit Salmon, 16th Place, +11:57
5. Carlos Alberto Contreras, 19th Place, +17:51
6. Giuseppe Guerini, 22nd Place, +22:27: beat Armstrong on the Alpe d'Huez after getting sent off his bike by a collision with a fan.
7. Francisco Tomas García, 26th Place, +28:29
8. Luis Pérez Rodríguez, 29th Place, +35:51
9. François Simon, 30th Place, +36:19
10. Steve de Wolf, 41st Place, +44:52
 
Jun 2, 2011
155
0
8,830
Race Radio said:
You are right, Lance is legally on the ropes. He is in big trouble

It is surprising to see so much failure from him.....but this is what happens when your strategy is to keep doubling down, eventually it does not work
But what a winning streak! Its fffing unbelievable. Even the feds. I'm with DW - I'm fearing a lightning bolt or wet squib fizzle out.
 
Jul 8, 2009
501
0
0
Kretch said:
But what a winning streak! Its fffing unbelievable. Even the feds. I'm with DW - I'm fearing a lightning bolt or wet squib fizzle out.

Makes for damn good soap though; better than TV - how long's Polish out?
From the "Members Suspension thread" dated 2nd July -

"I have banned polish for 3 months.. it is very overdue and the fellow has been hardcore trolling"
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
BroDeal said:
He is trolling at Velonews now.

I am somewhat expecting Armstrong to find a way to get away with it. I will be laughing heartily if he does not.
To be fair, since Polish has been sidelined the UCI, Pat, Herman and the rest of LA legal team have been providing stunning stupidity.

I certainly don't underestimate Armstrongs hubris to attempt to keep fighting this, but what options are left?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
BroDeal said:
I am somewhat expecting Armstrong to find a way to get away with it. I will be laughing heartily if he does not.
Read USADA's reply (filed today). They lay out their chain of authority from USOC to USADA.

It appears that USADA will keep going under that authority even if they are renounced by USAC.

I half expect that UCI/USAC will blow off the USADA result in some way or another, but not until after the evidence is deployed.
 
Aug 2, 2010
217
0
0
I half expect that UCI/USAC will blow off the USADA result in some way or another said:
That would get cycling banned from the Olympics, if the IOC is true to its word. Would McQuaid and Johnson really risk cycling's Olympic banishment for a retired celebrity athlete?

Conversely, would IOC go against its word and put the Olympic brand on the line for Armstrong?
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Kretch said:
But what a winning streak! Its fffing unbelievable. Even the feds. I'm with DW - I'm fearing a lightning bolt or wet squib fizzle out.
Armstrong did not beat the Feds; rather, the Los Angeles DA unilaterally stopped a Grand Jury investigation.

What I believed is that once the DA amassed conclusive evidence of doping, a tactical decision was made to turn evidence of doping to the USADA, knowing that a perjury case would be much easier to prover if Armstrong was already found by the USADA to have doped.

Lessons learned from Bonds and more important, Clemens.
 
Oct 25, 2010
434
0
0
The UCI is being so blatant in this attempting to protect armstrong...makes one wonder just how filthy the skeletons in the closet really are...wouldn't it be wonderful if not only armstrong were finally fully exposed but maybe the UCI being destroyed as well...not just taking a hit, but collapsing entirely...
 
Jun 2, 2011
155
0
8,830
Turner29 said:
Armstrong did not beat the Feds; rather, the Los Angeles DA unilaterally stopped a Grand Jury investigation.

What I believed is that once the DA amassed conclusive evidence of doping, a tactical decision was made to turn evidence of doping to the USADA, knowing that a perjury case would be much easier to prover if Armstrong was already found by the USADA to have doped.

Lessons learned from Bonds and more important, Clemens.
To the bolded: how does not change LA 1 Feds 0.

The rest I like.
 
Sep 14, 2011
21
0
0
Hey, DA (a tla for a salutation oft used in rec.bicycles.racing),

It wasn't the Los Angeles District Attorney that put an end to the criminal investigation of LA, it was the United States Attorney for the Central District of California, André Birotte Jr.

Kretch 0
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 2
fmk_RoI The Clinic 23

ASK THE COMMUNITY