USADA - Armstrong

[Viking]

When did USA cycling make a statement about this case?

Did I miss this somewhere?

As far as I know, they made their first official statement yesterday:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...t-regarding-rift-between-usada-and-uci_233727

 

[Kennf1]

When did USA cycling make a statement about this case?

Did I miss this somewhere?

They haven't publicly commented, but they supplied an affidavit on Tuesday supporting the jurisdictional arguments being made by UCI/Armstrong.

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

They haven't publicly commented, but they supplied an affidavit on Tuesday supporting the jurisdictional arguments being made by UCI/Armstrong.

So long as they stick to technically correct, factual responses without over reaching, I don't begrudge USAC with providing basic answers to questions (which I believe was the case in this situation) as a part of their responsibility and function for license holders.

It's no different to my sentiments toward USADA and Tygart for providing similar to Armstrong's team during the SCA arbitration. I certainly don't hold it against them.

 

[DirtyWorks]

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.

My estimation is that *IF* USADA can keep the CAS hearing on U.S. soil, then Team Wonderboy is at a huge disadvantage because they can't make stuff up as readily as if the process happens in Switzerland.

I think what gets released at the end of the arbitration isn't as rich as some may believe. Unless Marti/Hog go full-nuclear-blast-destruction and go the public hearing route I think the pickings may be slim. Maybe I'm wrong about that. Please correct me if I am.

I still think if there's evidence leaking from Marti with Marti first to arbitration we'll know about it.

The USADA/CAS conclusion will open Team Wonderboy up to litigation though. Who knows what will come from that.

 

[python]

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

i don't think this is so unless you can bring relevant quotes from the specific landis ruling by cas that it was heard by cas under the us law. i am not a lawyer, but the way i see this is common sense - if the swiss supreme court is the only appeal authority, which it is, then having cas hearing under the overriding laws of another country (in this case the us) would negate most value for an appeal.

regardless, you are confusing 2 situations.

landis' case was appealed AFTER it was heard in the us. Landis turned down the offer made to armstrong - to hear one single case in cas.

my point was that the usada offer is a non-starter for similar reasons.

 

[MarkvW]

I've been trying to find the Shawn Farrell declaration, but without any luck.

In Farrell's affidavit does he assert that he is testifying on behalf of USA Cycling? I'm getting the sense that he does not assert that he is speaking on behalf of USA Cycling.

Makes a big difference. A dude talking about the rules is not the same thing as USA CYCLING saying that USADA is not following the rules.

 

[Merckx index]

Which hearing do you mean?

Sorry, I was referring to a hearing before CAS or a USADA panel, not the Sparks decision.

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

This is where UCI is really hurting USADA’s case. If they joined USADA, then there would be no problem, since prior to 2004 LA agreed to abide by UCI’s anti-doping rules. This is pretty serious, since only one of his TDF titles, 2005, was earned when WADA/USADA rules were in effect. The other six could become immune by this logic.

I even wonder if USADA might try to make a deal with UCI: in return for their cooperation, which would facilitate their case in the earlier years, USADA agrees not to pursue the conflict of interest issue, not bring up any evidence of UCI protecting LA.

Of course, if they really have good evidence of that, it’s a lot to give up. And in this latest brief, they use the conflict of interest as one argument against the precedence of UCI’s anti-doping rules. But even if USADA were to establish that UCI was corrupt, and therefore its rules should not apply to LA’s case, that doesn’t mean that the earlier years now fall under WADA/USADA jurisdiction. In fact, by destroying UCI’s legitimacy, USADA might run the risk of putting the situation in limbo, where no one has a valid claim that LA broke their rules. The blunt fact is that all LA agreed to in 1999-2004 was UCI’s rules. If UCI is shown to be illegitimate, on what basis can LA be sanctioned?

As a rough analogy, consider someone who immigrates to the U.S., and becomes a citizen, say in 2005. Later it emerges that this person committed a crime in his native country in 2004 or earlier. Could he be prosecuted for this crime in the U.S. under U.S. law? Of course not. He would have to be prosecuted in and by his country of origin. If that country decided not to pursue the case, the individual would walk. Of course, if the crime were a serious one, he might lose his U.S. citizenship and/or be deported, but he could not be convicted or penalized for his crime.

Is LA in any different situation with respect to USADA? If so, why? I looked through the WADA code and could find nothing that relates to anti-doping violations that occur in cycling prior to 2004. But this is the current code. Perhaps when the code was updated in 2004 or 2005, right after UCI signed on, there was some mention of that.

Mark: https://docs.google.com/a/velonation.com/file/d/0B9YzclxcT0NHSFNwRWNtM1R6M2c/edit?pli=1

It's at the end of that Velo analysis. He seems to be giving truthful answers to questions, but in ways that are slanted towards LA. E.g., he says that LA is not an amateur athlete and that pro races are not part of the Olympics.

 

[snackattack]

- if the swiss supreme court is the only appeal authority, which it is -

WRONG !!!!

NO is not unless you are a Swiss citizen.

 

[python]

I've been trying to find the Shawn Farrell declaration, but without any luck.

In Farrell's affidavit does he assert that he is testifying on behalf of USA Cycling? I'm getting the sense that he does not assert that he is speaking on behalf of USA Cycling.

Makes a big difference. A dude talking about the rules is not the same thing as USA CYCLING saying that USADA is not following the rules.

i did read his affidavit (you can find the link under the velonation analysis. it sounded to me as a forced, face-saving gesture rather than a strong support the us cycling fed rendered armstrong. at no time he was speaking of a specific case jurisdiction but the general uci authority. it was weak source, as tff puts it.

 

[python]

WRONG !!!!

NO is not unless you are a Swiss citizen.

do some reading about how global anti-doping rules work and how a rider of any nationality that signed an application binds him/herself to the cas and ultimately the swiss supreme court.

 

[Velodude]

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:

Mas, correction. Hamilton's appeal was before the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Brown Palace hotel in downtown Denver, Co. in January 2006.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=cycling&id=2287436

From memory, Hamilton's mouthpiece, Howard Jacobs, introduced additional evidence into the (de novo) Appeal and the US hearing location was of convenience.

 

[Kennf1]

i did read his affidavit (you can find the link under the velonation analysis. it sounded to me as a forced, face-saving gesture rather than a strong support the us cycling fed rendered armstrong. at no time he was speaking of a specific case jurisdiction but the general uci authority. it was weak source, as tff puts it.

Yep. It's the kind of thing to which Sparks could say: "If what you're saying is true, then I still don't care."

 

[snackattack]

do some reading about how global anti-doping rules work and how a rider of any nationality that signed an application binds him/herself to the cas and ultimately the swiss supreme court.

That's all a bunch of bs and illegal make believe.

 

[MarkvW]

i did read his affvit (you can find the link under the velonation analysis. it sounded to me as a forced, face-saving gesture rather than a strong support the us cycling fed rendered armstrong. at no time he was speaking of a specific case jurisdiction but the general uci authority. it was weak source, as tff puts it.

Thanks MI & Python.
USA Cycling has not committed itself to anything with the Farrell affidavit. The Weasels still have maneuver room.

 

[zigmeister]

Wait, so now the latest is that the USADA is making a procedural change due to the obvious bias and loaded review board hand picked by themselves? Gheeee...really. Oh, now we will allow the CAS to perform the independent review...lol. Imbeciles. USADA grasping at straws.

FYI, Lance probably did dope IMO. But you gotta have some sensible process in place and acutally have more evidence than Floyd, Tyler and those mystery test results from a few years ago.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

i don't think this is so unless you can bring relevant quotes from the specific landis ruling by cas that it was heard by cas under the us law. i am not a lawyer, but the way i see this is common sense - if the swiss supreme court is the only appeal authority, which it is, then having cas hearing under the overriding laws of another country (in this case the us) would negate most value for an appeal.

regardless, you are confusing 2 situations.

landis' case was appealed AFTER it was heard in the us. Landis turned down the offer made to armstrong - to hear one single case in cas.

my point was that the usada offer is a non-starter for similar reasons.

I am not the one confusing anything - CAS rules are clear, if the parties do not agree then it will be heard under Swiss law.

While my first reaction was that Armstrong would refuse the single CAS option, (assuming Sparks judgement goes against him) USADA have left Armstrong 2 options and neither of them is particularly nice for him.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Wait, so now the latest is that the USADA is making a procedural change due to the obvious bias and loaded review board hand picked by themselves? Gheeee...really. Oh, now we will allow the CAS to perform the independent review...lol. Imbeciles. USADA grasping at straws.

FYI, Lance probably did dope IMO. But you gotta have some sensible process in place and acutally have more evidence than Floyd, Tyler and those mystery test results from a few years ago.

There is nothing in your post that is correct except that "lance probably did dope."

 

[python]

Thanks MI & Python.
USA Cycling has not committed itself to anything with the Farrell affidavit. The Weasels still have maneuver room.

look, frankly, the usac is in the vulnerable position politically...

i am not an american and know next to zero about how american cycling politics work. all i heard is that the complicit armstrong old cronies are still in power and yet they have been challenged to their face...clearly there is some 'wind direction' search at this time. as with many failed human systems, the weaklings are afraid to take sides because they want to jump on a winning side...this is how i see usac right now.

 

[mewmewmew13]

look, frankly, the usac is in the vulnerable position politically...

i am not an american and know next to zero about how american cycling politics work. all i heard is that the complicit armstrong old cronies are still in power and yet they have been challenged to their face...clearly there is some 'wind direction' search at this time. as with many failed human systems, the weaklings are afraid to take sides because they want to jump on a winning side...this is how i see usac right now.

I think you are right on the mark, p.
The 'Weasel' bunch need to cover their butts, but they are being squeezed into an uncomfortable place right now, and I'm guessing it's only going to get worse for them....which they deserve.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Mas, correction. Hamilton's appeal was before the North American Court of Arbitration for Sport at the Brown Palace hotel in downtown Denver, Co. in January 2006.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=cycling&id=2287436

From memory, Hamilton's mouthpiece, Howard Jacobs, introduced additional evidence into the (de novo) Appeal and the US hearing location was of convenience.

I mentioned Landis, not Hamilton
But agree that holding arbitration on US soil is a matter of convenience, not law.

 

[thehog]

The UCI just filed their replied to USADA and WADA. I guess we'll see the shortly.

 

[thehog]

The UCI just filed their replied to USADA and WADA. I guess we'll see the shortly.

Classic McQuaid:

@NYDNSportsITeam: UCI boss Pat McQuaid: "The UCI did not sue Mr. Landis for what he said on the subject of other persons."

@NYDNSportsITeam: McQuaid on UCI defamation case against Floyd: "Mr. Landis has until now avoided the summons to be served upon him."

 

[thehog]

and the new Armstrong filing:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/102482611/html5

 

[caryopsis]

and the new Armstrong filing:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/102482611/html5

thanks, hog!

here's the link to the non-mobile version (so you can browse rather than downloading the doc):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482611/Armstrong-Clogs-the-Courts-8-9

 

[Race Radio]

Pat's letter to Howman
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482467/Fat-Pat-Letter-to-Howman
Pat's letter to Bock
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102482392/Fat-Pat-Letter-to-Bock

It is now clear that BPC is Pat McQuaid