USADA - Armstrong

[mewmewmew13]

Because if he intervened under FRCP 24, he ran the risk of having the question addressed by Sparks, and thus possibly losing his right to raise the argument in anything but an appeal. Having read Sparks' original deconstruction of Armstrong's original complaint, I think they all pretty much resigned themselves to the fact that he was going to throw this out on SMJ solely, but why take the chance he would get further into the arguments being made?

Tomorrow, Sparks dismisses for lack of SMJ.

Shortly thereafter, UCI initiates a suit to win the right to arbitrate the case.

Which will delay things as expected but hope the outcome will surely be against them.

 

[MarkvW]

Because if he intervened under FRCP 24, he ran the risk of having the question addressed by Sparks, and thus possibly losing his right to raise the argument in anything but an appeal. Having read Sparks' original deconstruction of Armstrong's original complaint, I think they all pretty much resigned themselves to the fact that he was going to throw this out on SMJ solely, but why take the chance he would get further into the arguments being made?

Tomorrow, Sparks dismisses for lack of SMJ.

Shortly thereafter, UCI initiates a suit to win the right to arbitrate the case.

Sorry, didn't read your post through. Where could Pat sue where he wouldn't risk exposing the evidence?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Which will delay things as expected but hope the outcome will surely be against them.

I hope so too. In fact, hopefully, I am completely wrong about them filing, and this goes to arbitration, but I doubt all of the smoke produced over the past week in relation to that matter was for nothing.

If they file, they will have to file for a temporary injunction (which may be why Lance's legal team dropped their's in the first place), and my hope is that they would be denied, but I am betting that will not be the case. Then all of this is pushed further down the road and more things possibly gum up the works. By no means do I believe that just because one side of this thing is conducting itself competently, the other side doesn't have a chance to come out of this in a much better place than they would if this were allowed to play out like it should.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry, didn't read your post through. Where could Pat sue where he wouldn't risk exposing the evidence?

I think the play here is that there isn't any real evidence that the UCI was complicit. All of that actual evidence resides with Armstrong and Bruyneel. Without them, there may be no real evidence that the UCI has a measured conflict of interest. USADA has never suggested they have a real link, they just have the fact that doping took place under their watch and most of it was never exposed, and that there are a couple of people who say they heard Lance say that he got off scott free for a doping violation. Past that, they don't need any of the evidence of the trial to argue that they should conduct the arbitration pursuant to their rules. You know that it isn't what you know, it's what you can prove. If the USADA cannot prove a real conflict of interest, then the UCI is making a relatively strong argument that they are the superior body for conducting the arbitration as they have a process (though not used anywhere else, it is there), and they were part of the agreement Lance signed every single year when he applied for a license unlike the USADA.

Here is the rub though, they have already suggested that the proceeding be conducted under the dictates of some phantom 3rd party that has no framework for even being brought into existence.

 

[User Guide]

Ouch !!!

https://docs.google.com/a/velonation.com/file/d/0B9YzclxcT0NHbDhsVlFycVE2UzA/edit?pli=1
is Exhibit CC

WADA (Howmans) response, ouch indeed

 

[ElChingon]

https://docs.google.com/a/velonation.com/file/d/0B9YzclxcT0NHbDhsVlFycVE2UzA/edit?pli=1
is Exhibit CC

WADA (Howmans) response, ouch indeed

Looks like Armstrong forgot to legally move to Switzerland or Monaco back when he started this mess, now his love for Texas will also be tied to his fall. Maybe he'll champion for Texas to succeed from the Union now

Some of the footnotes seem to be taken straight out of this thread

 

[argyllflyer]

Reading Pat's (and Wonderboy's too I suppose) rubbish, I'm reminded of an ancient UK tv programme which also played out playground debates in the domain of adults... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd03JCA

 

[ChewbaccaD]

https://docs.google.com/a/velonation.com/file/d/0B9YzclxcT0NHbDhsVlFycVE2UzA/edit?pli=1
is Exhibit CC

WADA (Howmans) response, ouch indeed

Wow, just read that. This sticks out to me:

The Code confers results management authority on the ADO “which discovered theviolation,” not on the ADO which discovered the first shred of evidence that led to an investigation which then led to the discovery of violations.

So, interestingly, this puts the UCI in the uncomfortable position of asserting that it had evidence of Lance doping, and IT DIDN'T INITIATE ANY PROCEEDINGS. Because that is what they are saying.

I know I am posting a lot here, and sometimes reverse course, but that is just how I work. All that smoke about them being the primary authority based on the several arguments they are making for that may come to naught based on the plain language of their rules. Because that quote is pretty clear, and VERY damning if somehow the UCI wants to say that it discovered Armstrong's doping...because if they discovered it, they certainly have not made ANY steps to deal with that fraud prior to now. Ooohhh pobrecito.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I hope so too. In fact, hopefully, I am completely wrong about them filing, and this goes to arbitration, but I doubt all of the smoke produced over the past week in relation to that matter was for nothing.

If they file, they will have to file for a temporary injunction (which may be why Lance's legal team dropped their's in the first place), and my hope is that they would be denied, but I am betting that will not be the case. Then all of this is pushed further down the road and more things possibly gum up the works. By no means do I believe that just because one side of this thing is conducting itself competently, the other side doesn't have a chance to come out of this in a much better place than they would if this were allowed to play out like it should.

This is what worries me most.
It's like a breaking of your rhythm in a race or climbing a hill...it breaks the concentration and leads to mistakes or openings that should not be there.

We are so close...
Armstrong needs to pay for what he has brought down on others...and the UCI as well.

 

[AussieGoddess]

They took action - they ask USADA to investigate.

They just dont like that USADA found evidence for the case and laid charges without telling them early enough for them to cover it up ... so now they are withdrawing USADA's right to proceed.

Lets just assume for a minute that UCI win on the jurisdiction point - that UCI do in fact have jurisdiction. USADA also have jurisdiction, so by asking USADA to investigate are they not delegating that authority to USADA?
USADA then (properly) laid charges based on its investigation.

Can the UCI then withdraw that authority after the charges are laid?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

They took action - they ask USADA to investigate.

They just dont like that USADA found evidence for the case and laid charges without telling them early enough for them to cover it up ... so now they are withdrawing USADA's right to proceed.

Lets just assume for a minute that UCI win on the jurisdiction point - that UCI do in fact have jurisdiction. USADA also have jurisdiction, so by asking USADA to investigate are they not delegating that authority to USADA?
USADA then (properly) laid charges based on its investigation.

Can the UCI then withdraw that authority after the charges are laid?

I don't know if, for the purposes of their statute, that is the case. Because the USADA is saying that it was already taking action when the UCI told them to, which is their right. I don't know that saying "hey, look into that" constitutes action sufficient to proclaim at the end of a process in which you took no part, "hey, we started ****ing this cat first" anyway. Because that is NOT how "The Code confers results management authority on the ADO “which discovered theviolation,” not on the ADO which discovered the first shred of evidence that led to an investigation which then led to the discovery of violations." reads to me. That being the case, I don't think it looks very good to have been provided evidence sufficient to prosecute Armstrong, and to have nor really partaken in ANYTHING resembling action against him. Because they are asserting that they uncovered the doping if they are using that part of the code, and if they uncovered it, they sure didn't take any action.

If all they uncovered was a suggestion that something happened, and they said "look into it" then by their own rules, that is NOT sufficient to give them jurisdiction.

 

[Epicycle]

The funniest part about today's Armstrong filing is that it argues that the jurisdictional issue should be decided by a jury trial before the court even takes up the question of whether the matter is subject to arbitration or not.

 

[Maxiton]

It would have been better not to submit the letters. My feeling is these were submitted under servere pressure and that the regular legal council walked away. McQuaid ended having to draft most himself. Perhaps there are those within the UCI who no longer agree with the position that McQuaid is taking?

This will taint the UCI for years if they don't act now.

The lack of professionalism is truly astounding. These letters have to have been written while he was under the influence of tranquilizers or alcohol, or, more likely, both - and sent while still under the influence.

I can see why UCI's attorneys would refuse to draft this, or anything like it, or assert any claim on behalf of the UCI. But surely McQuaid has a secretary whose job it is to make his letters look professional?

I mean, there's zero excuse for something like this, and little explanation beyond addiction to drugs and drink and mental instability. What else could it be?

But as for McQuaid being BPC - no chance. For those who haven't figured it out yet, BPC is Armstrong himself. I thought it was obvious.

 

[thehog]

The lack of professionalism is truly astounding. These letters have to have been written while he was under the influence of tranquilizers or alcohol, or, more likely, both - and sent while still under the influence.

I can see why UCI's attorneys would refuse to draft this, or anything like it, or assert any claim on behalf of the UCI. But surely McQuaid has a secretary whose job it is to make his letters look professional?

I mean, there's zero excuse for something like this, and little explanation beyond addiction to drugs and drink and mental instability. What else could it be?

But as for McQuaid being BPC - no chance. For those who haven't figured it out yet, BPC is Armstrong himself. I thought it was obvious.

Maybe McQuaid rushed the letters because Happy Hour was almost over in the Olympic Village? Quick game of Beer pong then send often off via royal mail.

They are truly astounding. On UCI letterhead as well.

Maybe he's just doesn't care anymore? He knows his demise is near.

 

[User Guide]

A couple of the juicier extracts of Wada's reponse to McQuaids letters...


The UCI, an entity which knows nothing about what Mr. Landis or any of USADA’s many witnesses observed, an entity which never met with any witness and never conducted any investigation, is claiming to have “discovered the violation” and yet at the same time the UCI is, as you said in your July 13, letter, unable to determine “whether or not an anti-doping violation has occurred.” So, in your own words UCI claims both to have “discovered” a violation and to not know whether a violation occurred. This is exactly the sort of “Never, Never Land” created by the UCI’s nonsensical discovery rule and it well illustrates why that rule cannot possibly be enforceable under the Code,
Lolled @ that


“We have never previously heard any complaint from you or anyone associated with the UCI in relation to the due process given in USADA proceedings which have to date been exemplary in terms of the process given to athletes and take place in front of reputable arbitration institutions.”



…UCI’s refusal to cooperate with USADA appear to me to be against article 23.2.3 of the Code,”

“We therefore urge you to reconsider your position and to provide all support to USADA in the conduct of this case, including all documents required by them.”


“By adopting its current position UCI is sadly destroying the credibility it has slowly been regaining in the past years in the fight against doping,”

 

[Hugh Januss]

But as for McQuaid being BPC - no chance. For those who haven't figured it out yet, BPC is Armstrong himself. I thought it was obvious.

Naw, it couldn't be...........could it?

 

[thehog]

Naw, it couldn't be...........could it?

He reads these pages a lot. Daily.

 

[Epicycle]

He reads these pages a lot. Daily.

Yeah I remember Sheryl Crow talking about how obsessive he was checking all the different cycling websites.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Kinda hard to picture him making the effort to read anything.......a lot.

 

[Maxiton]

McQuaid mentioned in the Bock letter that he had some help in drafting the letters - obviously not nearly enough help, but doubtless that's where the inter alia came from. Anyway, I thought the Bock letter was the worst of the two.

This really brings to light the overall lack of professionalism at UCI. I'm kind of astounded. It's like, "Eh, we don't really need that professional stuff, we're just here to make a little dough." Talk about looking bad.

 

[AcademyCC]

Armstrongs face he reads Pat's letters!! hahaha

 

[Maxiton]

Armstrongs face he reads Pat's letters!! hahaha

 

[AcademyCC]

I keep getting a picture in my head of Pat waking up hungover in the morning and saying to the missus " Auh jesus was I at that computer again last night?"

 

[Maxiton]

Kinda hard to picture him making the effort to read anything.......a lot.

I think he's probably a bright guy. Lack of intelligence isn't one of his faults.

 

[Maxiton]

I think he's probably a bright guy. Lack of intelligence isn't one of his faults.

But on second thought, it doesn't take that much intelligence to know that you don't screw your co-conspirators and ground soldiers, and that imbeciles like McQuaid are unreliable, so . . . .