USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

Long by very good analysis here: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...Cycling-comment-prior-to-Federal-hearing.aspx

 

[Merckx index]

Long by very good analysis here: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...Cycling-comment-prior-to-Federal-hearing.aspx

Note: It is worth noting the difference in arbitration held in front of the CAS panel in Switzerland and a panel sitting in the US. VeloNation understands that a Swiss hearing would mean that US citizens are not required to take the stand and thus speak under oath, making it more difficult to establish the full picture under such a scenario.

So this would be a major reason why USADA wants the hearing to be in the U.S.

Regarding USAC’s OFarrell’s submission, which includes copies of licenses LA signed in 2004 and 2011:

However the licence application signed January 3rd 2011 includes a stipulation inches above Armstrong’s signature which may actually aid USADA’s arguments rather than his own. In signing it, Armstrong agreed to abide by relevant rules; these appear to hand priority to WADA.

‘I agree to submit to drug testing and to comply with and be bound by the UCI anti-doping regulations, the world anti doping code, or the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA), providing such regulations comply with the World Anti-Doping Code,” it stated.

That backs the WADA and USADA arguments that the Code takes precedence over all other regulations.

But of course licenses prior to 2005, including the 2004 one attached, do not say this. I continue to think this is going to be a major issue in any hearing. The text above the 2011 license, which would also be above the 2009 and 2010 licenses, seem to support USADA pretty unambiguously, particularly now that WADA has thrown its support behind them. But establishing grounds for earlier years is going to be very tricky.

 

[TheEnoculator]

So what do you think how Judge Sparks will decide tomorrow?

 

[snackattack]

So what do you think how Judge Sparks will decide tomorrow?

Is he ?

Either party will appeal a dicision in-adverse.

 

[Maxiton]

One would think the ASO would be technically bound to the eligibility of a rider, per the outcome of the USADA investigation. However, might they open themselves up to litigation if they disqualify Armstrong on the basis of criminal proceedings if the USADA/UCI do not formally disqualify Armstrong?

FWIW, Bond's single-season and lifetime home run record is accompanied by asterisks in several baseball almanacs, but I've yet to see such annotation on an official MLB website. Cooperstown even accepted the home run ball that surpassed Aaron's record (as well as other Bonds memorabilia), and it was only through the actions of a private citizen not associated with the organization to denote the controversy of the record (i.e. Mark Ecko, who purchased the baseball prior to donating it to Cooperstown, burned an asterisk onto the baseball). Certainly the majority of fans view the accomplishment should be accompanied by an asterisk, but it appears the official record has yet to reflect that.

What is an asterisk, really? It's a symbol indicating that there is a footnote to be found (the footnote in this case being allegations of performance enhancement through doping).

If you reduce doping to allegations, and then reduce those allegations to a footnote, what you've really done is to find a way to accept the doping. You don't say, this baseball I just purchased is worthless, because the achievement it represents was no achievement at all, it was mere cheating. Because if you said that you'd have to throw the baseball away. It would be worth less than a ball on the shelf.

So instead you say, here stands this great achievement (which, as the asterisk indicates, there are some questions about - see footnote). Most people don't know what the significance of the asterisk is, and don't care, and wouldn't read the footnote it points to if they did care.

The asterisk is just another way of keeping the doper's ball in play. Maybe Cooperstown has enough awareness and integrity to know this. An asterisk is a trick that cheapens and degrades the entire record it appears in. You're either there with no asterisk, or you're not there at all.

Same goes for cycling. Unfortunately, though, cycling has no Cooperstown to speak of - instead we have a private family, the Amaurys, namely, whose sole god is money, and we have the UCI, an openly corrupt organization that encourages and even requires doping even as it pretends to fight it.

In light of which, maybe an asterisk is the best this entire sport can aspire to.

 

[Race Radio]

So this would be a major reason why USADA wants the hearing to be in the U.S.

Regarding USAC’s OFarrell’s submission, which includes copies of licenses LA signed in 2004 and 2011:



But of course licenses prior to 2005, including the 2004 one attached, do not say this. I continue to think this is going to be a major issue in any hearing. The text above the 2011 license, which would also be above the 2009 and 2010 licenses, seem to support USADA pretty unambiguously, particularly now that WADA has thrown its support behind them. But establishing grounds for earlier years is going to be very tricky.

For now CAS would be to settle the jurisdictional issues. It seems pretty clear they would side with WADA/USADA.

 

[MacRoadie]

Is he ?

Either party will appeal a dicision in-adverse.

Let's hope Armstrong's lawyers are already working on it. We dont want them to miss yet another deadline...

 

[MarkvW]

But of course licenses prior to 2005, including the 2004 one attached, do not say this. I continue to think this is going to be a major issue in any hearing. The text above the 2011 license, which would also be above the 2009 and 2010 licenses, seem to support USADA pretty unambiguously, particularly now that WADA has thrown its support behind them. But establishing grounds for earlier years is going to be very tricky.

This is shaping up to be a "two track" system, from what I can figure.

There's the 'USADA is working for the USAC' track, and then there's the 'USADA is working (independently) for the USOC' track.

The 'USADA is working for the USAC' track has probably been effectively demolished by Lance with the help of his UCI and USAC buddies, because they have (erroneously) disavowed USADA's actions. It's disgusting, but there you have it.

The 'USADA is working for the USOC' track appears inviolate. That's the link to the Amateur Sports Act, and it will probably get Lance booted out of federal court all by itself, without any reference to the arbitration/arbitrability arguments.

I'm not sure how the arbitration agreements would come into play in the 'USADA is working for USOC track,' should Lance opt for arbitration. It won't suppress the evidence, though, and that's my major interest.

 

[MacRoadie]

It won't suppress the evidence, though, and that's my major interest.

That's the rub: no matter what track it takes, the evidence won't be suppressed.

 

[frenchfry]

It continually amazes me to what point the UCI and now USA cycling show absolutely no shame in their attempts to unilaterally undermine USADA's legitimate process to bring notorious cheaters to justice.

 

[thehog]

So this would be a major reason why USADA wants the hearing to be in the U.S.

Regarding USAC’s OFarrell’s submission, which includes copies of licenses LA signed in 2004 and 2011:



But of course licenses prior to 2005, including the 2004 one attached, do not say this. I continue to think this is going to be a major issue in any hearing. The text above the 2011 license, which would also be above the 2009 and 2010 licenses, seem to support USADA pretty unambiguously, particularly now that WADA has thrown its support behind them. But establishing grounds for earlier years is going to be very tricky.

Which hearing do you mean?

Sparks won't mandate or split the years. He'll recommend the USADA route.

UCI/Armstrong could only argue those points on appeal.

My suspicion would be that by "doping conspiracy" by proving doping from 1999 to 2010 then he would be stripped in total. They won't split the titles based on years. If you prove long term cheating and not “incidents” of isolated cheating then SOL may not apply or can be argued.

 

[mewmewmew13]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycl...ping-effects-livestrong-foundation/56894740/1

Remember that troll who used to say that everyone but a few guys in the clinic love Lance?



Impressive how they skate over using Livestrong funds to lobby for Lance. It appears the journalist did not realize that Serrano's spokesperson spoke multiple times on the issue and made it clear that the only topic discussed was USADA

"In online forums, skeptics have suggested the cyclist is trying to use the foundation as a public relations shield to deflect attention from whether he cheated. His supporters counter it's Lance being Lance, always passionate about Livestrong."

gotta love it.....

 

[frenchfry]

Thank you. I still, however, maintain that was not a victory for Armstrong but a smart tactical move on the part of the US DA.

Indeed there appeared to be a seamless transition from the dismissal of the Federal case into the USADA procedure - which so far appears to have been handled flawlessly by USADA despite the major artillery launched by Armstrong/UCI.

 

[thehog]

It continually amazes me to what point the UCI and now USA cycling show absolutely no shame in their attempts to unilaterally undermine USADA's legitimate process to bring notorious cheaters to justice.

If it was anyone else it would be USADA/UCI/WADA vs. athlete.

It sounds strange to say but guys like Valverde must shake his head by this process and lack of consistency. No wonder none of the Pro’s dare say anything in regards to Armstrong.

 

[python]

..just had a chance to catch up on reading all new legal papers and shane stokes' analysis.

many thoughts are spinning in my head... the usada offer of one single and final arbitration in cas on us soil and under the us law is hardly a surprise...but i think the way it was worded, it is a non-starter.

cas's charter states (i am rephrasing here to convey the spirit not the letter) that the swiss law shall apply as a final legal judgment criteria. That's why the only appeal after cas is the swiss supreme federal court.

i am not aware of any, but this does not mean there weren't, of cases when cas compromised the supremacy of swiss law.

me thinks, cas will never agree to this usada condition though many a cas panels traveled to the states to actually conduct some hearings...

----
decided to add another thought - i think this condition is to force a north american hearing, which of cause thereafter can be appealed to cas. it was not to prevent cas hearing all together. me thinks, usada is trying to introduce so much damaging evidence that the us players formerly offended by armstrong, and who perhaps are evidence witnesses, made this a condition so that they can sue their offender.

 

[thehog]

..just

me thinks, cas will never agree to this usada condition though many a cas panels traveled to the states to actually conduct some hearings...

CAS is already in the US (New York). And in Sydney. Its not just a Swiss based organisation. Its a global organisation.

 

[python]

CAS is already in the US (New York). And in Sydney. Its not just a Swiss based organisation. Its a global organisation.

i am not surprised you are missing forest for the trees...i was talking about the supremacy of swiss law, just do the elementary reading, not where cas is located.

 

[Berzin]

It continually amazes me to what point the UCI and now USA cycling show absolutely no shame in their attempts to unilaterally undermine USADA's legitimate process to bring notorious cheaters to justice.

When did USA cycling make a statement about this case?

Did I miss this somewhere?

 

[thehog]

i am not surprised you are missing forest for the trees...i was talking about the supremacy of swiss law, just do the elementary reading, not where cas is located.

Your sarcasm is wasted upon me.

You clearly stated CAS panels travelling to the US. That they don't do. They have their own panelists (if selected) in the US.

Just be clear and try using capital letters now and then. Do I make myself understood?

 

[python]

Your sarcasm is wasted upon me.

i rarely waste much time on you just like i dont on polish b/c i dont take both of you seriously...and you still dont know how to read plain text i a post just placed

swiss law is supreme to cas not the us law as usada proposed

 

[red_flanders]

Please keep the discussion centered around Armstrong USADA and handle any beefs you have with other posters backchannel if you must. Posts have been deleted. Thanks for your co-operation.

 

[sniper]

Please keep the discussion centered around Armstrong USADA and handle any beefs you have with other posters backchannel if you must. Posts have been deleted. Thanks for your co-operation.

Too bad, I was LMAO
Reminded me of this legendary footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pe0rNieL-Q

 

[Dr. Maserati]

..just had a chance to catch up on reading all new legal papers and shane stokes' analysis.

many thoughts are spinning in my head... the usada offer of one single and final arbitration in cas on us soil and under the us law is hardly a surprise...but i think the way it was worded, it is a non-starter.

cas's charter states (i am rephrasing here to convey the spirit not the letter) that the swiss law shall apply as a final legal judgment criteria. That's why the only appeal after cas is the swiss supreme federal court.

i am not aware of any, but this does not mean there weren't, of cases when cas compromised the supremacy of swiss law.

me thinks, cas will never agree to this usada condition though many a cas panels traveled to the states to actually conduct some hearings...

----
decided to add another thought - i think this condition is to force a north american hearing, which of cause thereafter can be appealed to cas. it was not to prevent cas hearing all together. me thinks, usada is trying to introduce so much damaging evidence that the us players formerly offended by armstrong, and who perhaps are evidence witnesses, made this a condition so that they can sue their offender.

No - if we remember from the Landis case it was appealed to CAS and heard in New York under US laws.

The relevant section within CAS is:

R45 Law Applicable to the Merits
The Panel shall decide the dispute according to the rules of law chosen by the parties or, in the absence of such a choice, according to Swiss law. The parties may authorize the Panel to decide ex aequo et bono.

 

[thehog]

Please keep the discussion centered around Armstrong USADA and handle any beefs you have with other posters backchannel if you must. Posts have been deleted. Thanks for your co-operation.

Cheers. Some of these guys are getting out of hand. I can't do it on my own.

 

[MarkvW]

No - if we remember from the Landis case it was appealed to CAS and heard in New York under US laws.

The relevant section within CAS is:

Thanks. Very helpful.