USADA - Armstrong

[Anonymous]

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

Post of the year.

 

[the big ring]

Hmmm so the dead line was not a dead line for submitting documents - just a dead line for ....

 

[Anonymous]

Pat's First sentence to Howman;

Please be assured that we are aware of that article that states indeed that “resultsmanagement and hearings shall be the responsibility of and shall be governed by theprocedural rules of the Anti-Doping Organization that initiated and directed Samplecollection (or, if no Sample Collection is involved, the organization which discovered theviolation)”

WTF? Really?

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

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

What means "BPC" ....??

 

[Kennf1]

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

I hope they also filed a motion for leave with this.
Local Rule CV-7 (e): absent leave of court, after the movant's reply brief is filed, no further submisions on the motion are allowed.

 

[Race Radio]

What means "BPC" ....??

Long story. It refers to a unstable guy who used to troll this forum by posing absurd garbage. MCQuaid's recently letter's have a touch of his crazy in them

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Pat's First sentence to Howman;



WTF? Really?

Whats your problem with that?

 

[sniper]

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

thanks for posting the letters RR!

Are you ****ting me?
That letter to Howman is one of the worst pieces I've ever read. My goodness, Ramsey would say.

p.s. who's BPC? Some poster here?
EDIT: just saw RR's post.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Long story. It refers to a unstable guy who used to troll this forum by posing absurd garbage. MCQuaid's recently letter's have a touch of his crazy in them

Lol..I was trying to find a sensible reply but your response is the most succinct!

WTH are Armstrong and his team thinking?? Their approach is so completely tortuous ....!? Is their concept just to try to wear everyone down??

 

[fishtacos]

Long story. It refers to a unstable guy who used to troll this forum by posing absurd garbage. MCQuaid's recently letter's have a touch of his crazy in them

That's not "a touch of crazy", that first letter was written by someone on heavy medication.

This really is starting to look like an existential battle between the UCI and USADA (and, by extension, WADA, and all national anti-doping organizations).

 

[the big ring]

USADA’s jurisdiction
It is not enough for USADA to state in its rules that it has jurisdiction in order to have such jurisdiction indeed. That will depend on the acceptance of jurisdiction by those on which USADA claims authority.

Wow. So if I sign something agreeing to the rules of USADA, where those rules say they have jurisdiction over me, but I disagree, I can ignore them?

Is that what this buffoon is saying?

 

[BroDeal]

Are you ****ting me?
That letter to Howman is one of the worst pieces I've ever read. My goodness, Ramsey would say.

I guess Verbruggen is too drunk or otherwise occupied to write McQuaid's critical letters for him like he usually does.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess Verbruggen is too drunk or otherwise occupied to write McQuaid's critical letters for him like he usually does.

It seems as though all the legal minds at the UCI must be on vacation this week.

Anybody know Paddy's level of edumakation? He was either impaired or he needs to enroll over at the Zoolander Center.

 

[sniper]

Is Sparks in the possession of these letters?

 

[spalco]

gods those McQuaid letters are embarrassing. Not enough that the content is incomprehensible garbage lacking any kind of convincing argument, it's even full of spelling errors. And that's submitted to ****ing us federal court...

 

[sniper]

That's not "a touch of crazy", that first letter was written by someone on heavy medication.

This really is starting to look like an existential battle between the UCI and USADA (and, by extension, WADA, and all national anti-doping organizations).

I see where you're going, but thus far it's more of a slapstick than a battle. And even if we use the battle-metaphor: there is only one side receiving punches at the moment. Pat scoring own goals. Lots of friendly fire.
Not really much of battle, yet.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

thanks for posting the letters RR!

Are you ****ting me?
That letter to Howman is one of the worst pieces I've ever read. My goodness, Ramsey would say.

p.s. who's BPC? Some poster here?
EDIT: just saw RR's post.

Wait until you get to the letter to Brock - truly shocking - and in fairness not even BPC (or Polish) could write such waffle.

 

[Kennf1]

Is Sparks in the possession of these letters?

Yes. They were filed as exhibits to Armstrong's sur-reply today.

 

[python]

ok.. i suffered through the armstrong's response.

as usual, though i can't stand the bloke, my first approach is to view the document through the eyes of the authority the document was directed at/to - a federal judge by the name sam sparks with little appetite for bs...

and i found a lot of repetition from the previous submittalls. mind you, it was dated 9 august yet there was no room for even mentioning WADA's strong correction of the uci interpretations. not one word !! as if ignoring wada position is going to shut any thought process in the head of what seems a rather independent-minded and unorthodox judge.

i call this more bs and hope the judge sees through it.

 

[AcademyCC]

Second para in letter to bock "We also find it important that current cycling is clean and in this respect we regret usada probably allowed riders that admitted to doping to participate in the tour de France"

I'm speechless

 

[DirtyWorks]

Wow. So if I sign something agreeing to the rules of USADA, where those rules say they have jurisdiction over me, but I disagree, I can ignore them?

Is that what this buffoon is saying?

Pretty much. They used to have total authority for this kind of thing so it never got this far. I'm not sure why they didn't imagine this kind of outcome when WADA got set up. The IOC won't be directly worried, but a few sports federations very likely are.

I don't know why you guys are shocked. Unless the IOC takes exception, the UCI is free to do this and more.

 

[Anonymous]

First two sentence of Pat's letter to Bock;

Please note that UCI works for clean cycling and is doing all it can to fight doping. There isno conflict of interest here as the UCI is the most interested party in that the sport of cyclingis as clean as possible.

WTF? There is no conflict because... (Paddy trying hard to come up with something coherent) uh, um.... the UCI is the most interested party (which I'm quite sure is true) in that the sport of cycling is as clean as possible (which is horse****) insofar as Hein and myself can continue to pick winners and losers based on our financial interests.

Red copy added by me.

 

[Anonymous]

Second para in letter to bock "We also find it important that current cycling is clean and in this respect we regret usada probably allowed riders that admitted to doping to participate in the tour de France"

I'm speechless

+1

The selective outrage should surprise no one... but mind-blowing it is.

 

[fishtacos]

I see where you're going, but thus far it's more of a slapstick than a battle. And even if we use the battle-metaphor: there is only one side receiving punches at the moment. Pat scoring own goals. Lots of friendly fire.
Not really much of battle, yet.

I agree, Pat is as usual doing most of the damage to himself and the UCI, but they do seem to be trying to completely marginalize the USADA, which might have serious repercussions for all the AD agencies, if they pull it off.

 

[spalco]

ok.. i suffered through the armstrong's response.

as usual, though i can't stand the bloke, my first approach is to view the document through the eyes of the authority the document was directed at/to - a federal judge by the name sam sparks with little appetite for bs...

and i found a lot of repetition from the previous submittalls. mind you, it was dated 9 august yet there was no room for even mentioning WADA's strong correction of the uci interpretations. not one word !! as if ignoring wada position is going to shut any thought process in the head of what seems a rather independent-minded and unorthodox judge.

i call this more bs and hope the judge sees through it.

I'm hoping for a very creative smackdown judgement from Mr. Sparks. I expect his blood pressure rising significantly having to read this nonsense.