• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

USADA - Armstrong

Page 310 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Has to rule before the 13th.

True, but the judge isn't necessarily bound by the deadline in the arbitration proceeding, and if he feels he needs more time to rule, he can certainly just turn to USADA's lawyer in his court and "suggest" they give Armstrong another extension.

Still, he's had a week to digest the motion and the response, and the reply brief and all the other noise filed this week will probably not have changed his mind.
 
Mar 16, 2009
19,482
2
0
ellobodelmar.spaces.live.com
This bodes ill for Armstrong. Apparently the Judge likes competent Attorneys

Sparks said when he was an attorney, "I wasn't paid to be nice, my friend. I was paid to win. That's what you do. There's not anything that pleases me more than to see a lawyer representing his or her client in my courtroom to the best of their ability and not being afraid of the federal judge, or a state judge, for that matter -- any kind of judge."

Judge in Lance Armstrong case known for colorful rulings
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
MarkvW said:
On Monday, Armstrong has to decide whether or not he is going to elect arbitration.
i wish but it does not appear the case anymore. per the article i just booed for inaccuracies, he was granted another extension (by unfaily-minded usada) till 23 august

'...Armstrong had faced a Monday deadline to decide whether to take his case to arbitration, but USADA agreed to extend the deadline to Aug. 23 while his lawsuit is pending'
 
Kennf1 said:
True, but the judge isn't necessarily bound by the deadline in the arbitration proceeding, and if he feels he needs more time to rule, he can certainly just turn to USADA's lawyer in his court and "suggest" they give Armstrong another extension.

Still, he's had a week to digest the motion and the response, and the reply brief and all the other noise filed this week will probably not have changed his mind.

Nah. He's not going to delay the already delayed arbitration.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
True, but the judge isn't necessarily bound by the deadline in the arbitration proceeding, and if he feels he needs more time to rule, he can certainly just turn to USADA's lawyer in his court and "suggest" they give Armstrong another extension.

Still, he's had a week to digest the motion and the response, and the reply brief and all the other noise filed this week will probably not have changed his mind.
don't get confused by posters who only pay attention to what they want to read or to what has been in their own mind, in my post above i quoted gooner provided artile as another extension was granted by usada.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Deagol said:

thanks for reminding.
very true words by Schenk which never got the attention they deserved.

“The UCI's problem is the treatment of the Armstrong's late positives [the re-tested samples from 1999, allegedly positive for EPO - ed.].

"The UCI should have initiated a process to ensure an objective investigation. Also, Armstrong's 'donation': the UCI stated different amounts, dates, etc., and it never made any account receipts public, even though that should have been easy.”
 
From the USA Today article, as Python notes:

Armstrong had faced a Monday deadline to decide whether to take his case to arbitration, but USADA agreed to extend the deadline to Aug. 23 while his lawsuit is pending.

At a certain point, USADA becomes too willing to accommodate LA, just to appear fair. I hope they aren’t overdoing it with these extensions, which play into LA’s aims to stall, stall, stall. I assume that Sparks told USADA he couldn’t guarantee a ruling by the deadline Monday? But if that’s the case—if Sparks needs ten more days—it sounds as though he’s taking LA/UCI’s jurisdiction claims seriously.

But here’s the bottom line, IMO. If Sparks rules for LA/UCI, USADA should give (some of) their evidence to UCI, and ask them to proceed. UCI will probably decline to, but at that point, USADA can appeal their decision. Pat/UCI have already conceded this.

So we will be right back where we were before. This would mean considerable delay—probably UCI would take its dam sweet time to come to a decision that was foregone at the start—and yes, UCI would get the witness list, which they would hand over to Armstrong. But I don’t see how USADA can be denied getting this to arbitration eventually.

Edit: Given all the options LA has for stalling this case, I think a case can be made that USADA should bite the bullet and hand evidence over to UCI RIGHT NOW. At that point all the lawsuits will stop, LA will have no recourse to legal action. He's already based his main argument on the notion that UCI has the power to take action against him. This also removes the problem of USADA not being relevant prior to 2004. Then, as soon as UCI declines to pursue the case, USADA appeals. I'm thinking that taking that route would actually speed this process along faster than refusing to deal with UCI and enduring all LA's legal actions.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Berzin said:
Fanboys rejoice-Armstrong is "fighting" the charges not by moving forward and meeting them head-on, but by pulling every stalling tactic in the book so the process never gets a chance to play itself out.

If all this BS about the filing of another notice of appeal in some district court in another state is even remotely possible, someone do me a favor and wake me up when the case goes to arbitration, if it ever does.

Until then, I'm officially bored of this nonsense.

Good night.

I (probably like many others) have been commenting on how this is like a slow motion train wreck... and I just can't look away.

The UCI doing their about face is just too good. Paddy's letters yesterday are.... just fascinating, imo.

This case is many things.... boring isn't one of them, for me at least.

Discriminating tastes may certainly disagree :D
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
I assume that Sparks told USADA he couldn’t guarantee a ruling by the deadline Monday? But if that’s the case—if Sparks needs ten more days—it sounds as though he’s taking LA/UCI’s jurisdiction claims seriously.
.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Like I said, it's going to be a detailed order granting (or denying) the motion. He's got other cases on his docket (including criminal ones). He needs time with his law clerk to hammer out the order, and make sure it's bullet proof in this high-profile case. I've seen federal judges take months to rule on a motion to dismiss, not because it was a close call, but simply because they were backlogged.

Here's the question though. If USADA were to hand the case over to UCI, does the UCI have any deadline to take action? At what point can USADA appeal to CAS for the UCI's inaction?
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
Here's the question though. If USADA were to hand the case over to UCI, does the UCI have any deadline to take action? At what point can USADA appeal to CAS for the UCI's inaction?

The USADA is not going to had the case over to the UCI.
 
Merckx index said:
From the USA Today article, as Python notes:



At a certain point, USADA becomes too willing to accommodate LA, just to appear fair. I hope they aren’t overdoing it with these extensions, which play into LA’s aims to stall, stall, stall. I assume that Sparks told USADA he couldn’t guarantee a ruling by the deadline Monday? But if that’s the case—if Sparks needs ten more days—it sounds as though he’s taking LA/UCI’s jurisdiction claims seriously.

But here’s the bottom line, IMO. If Sparks rules for LA/UCI, USADA should give (some of) their evidence to UCI, and ask them to proceed. UCI will probably decline to, but at that point, USADA can appeal their decision. Pat/UCI have already conceded this.

So we will be right back where we were before. This would mean considerable delay—probably UCI would take its dam sweet time to come to a decision that was foregone at the start—and yes, UCI would get the witness list, which they would hand over to Armstrong. But I don’t see how USADA can be denied getting this to arbitration eventually.

Edit: Given all the options LA has for stalling this case, I think a case can be made that USADA should bite the bullet and hand evidence over to UCI RIGHT NOW. At that point all the lawsuits will stop, LA will have no recourse to legal action. He's already based his main argument on the notion that UCI has the power to take action against him. This also removes the problem of USADA not being relevant prior to 2004. Then, as soon as UCI declines to pursue the case, USADA appeals. I'm thinking that taking that route would actually speed this process along faster than refusing to deal with UCI and enduring all LA's legal actions.


Oh yes, the USADA is being so fair and reasonable. Hey, we are charging a bunch of guys with conspiracy and doping, you have 4 weeks to respond to us, although we aren't going to reveal any details to the parties accused, or we will suspend you forever!!!!

Yes, USADA is so reasonable. Clown operation.
 
Aug 7, 2010
1,247
0
0
Visit site
Race Radio said:
Hearing starts 2:00 Texas time today. There should be a decision but expect some attempt to clog the toilet by Wonderboy

I think Sparks has already decided, and will render Armstrong subject to USADA.

All the toilet clogging is for naught. The issue is straightforward.

Armstrong will likely appeal, on day 29. But he will have to deliver something new and salient for the decision to be reversed. There will be nothing new and salient available.
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
From the USA Today article, as Python notes:



At a certain point, USADA becomes too willing to accommodate LA, just to appear fair. I hope they aren’t overdoing it with these extensions, which play into LA’s aims to stall, stall, stall. I assume that Sparks told USADA he couldn’t guarantee a ruling by the deadline Monday? But if that’s the case—if Sparks needs ten more days—it sounds as though he’s taking LA/UCI’s jurisdiction claims seriously.

But here’s the bottom line, IMO. If Sparks rules for LA/UCI, USADA should give (some of) their evidence to UCI, and ask them to proceed. UCI will probably decline to, but at that point, USADA can appeal their decision. Pat/UCI have already conceded this.

So we will be right back where we were before. This would mean considerable delay—probably UCI would take its dam sweet time to come to a decision that was foregone at the start—and yes, UCI would get the witness list, which they would hand over to Armstrong. But I don’t see how USADA can be denied getting this to arbitration eventually.

Edit: Given all the options LA has for stalling this case, I think a case can be made that USADA should bite the bullet and hand evidence over to UCI RIGHT NOW. At that point all the lawsuits will stop, LA will have no recourse to legal action. He's already based his main argument on the notion that UCI has the power to take action against him. This also removes the problem of USADA not being relevant prior to 2004. Then, as soon as UCI declines to pursue the case, USADA appeals. I'm thinking that taking that route would actually speed this process along faster than refusing to deal with UCI and enduring all LA's legal actions.

1) The USADA is willing to accommodate Armstrong to some degree not only because part of his tactics are to paint the USADA as being unfair and giving him reasonable additional time counters his media tactics, but more import the USADA knows its evidence and case is very, very strong.

2) Being as fair and open-minded as I can and having read thru USADA and WADA documents, I sincerely doubt that Sparks will rule in favor of Armstrong.

Moreover, given Sparks' reputation for "colorful" rulings, as for example his stinging rebuke of Armstrong's initial suit and that the USADA has provided documents showing that previously Armstrong understood and accepted the USADA's authority (when it suited him in the case SCA Promotions), I am expecting some sharp wording against Armstrong in his decision.

3) I believe the UCI's about-face regarding the jurisdiction rights came as a realization that should, in the unlikely event, Sparks or some other court rules in favor of Armstrong, the UCI (being not only pro-Armstrong but part of the cover-up) can raise their corrupt hands and say "not our jurisdiction per WADA" and do nothing against Armstrong.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Visit site
zigmeister said:
Oh yes, the USADA is being so fair and reasonable. Hey, we are charging a bunch of guys with conspiracy and doping, you have 4 weeks to respond to us, although we aren't going to reveal any details to the parties accused, or we will suspend you forever!!!!

Yes, USADA is so reasonable. Clown operation.[/QUOTE]

You're confusing USADA with your employer, Public Strategies. You need to pull the mirror back so you can see something new.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Kennf1 said:
There will be a detailed written order issued. Unless he's already written it, I doubt we will see anything today. More likely next week. Then, assuming he grants the motion, Armstrong will have 30 days to file a notice of appeal with the 5th Circuit.

Agreed. I don't think he will rule today but submit an written dismantling of the smoke and mirrors later. I can't imagine he is pleased with the amateur performance by Wonderboy's pad liars
 
Oct 26, 2009
654
0
0
Visit site
zigmeister said:
Oh yes, the USADA is being so fair and reasonable. Hey, we are charging a bunch of guys with conspiracy and doping, you have 4 weeks to respond to us, although we aren't going to reveal any details to the parties accused, or we will suspend you forever!!!!

Yes, USADA is so reasonable. Clown operation.

You're saying that Armstrong should be able to determine the strength of USADA's case before he decides to go before arbitration. If he hasn't doped, why wouldn't he be eager to go before arbitration and prove his innocence?

The only thing Armstrong is trying to do is to avoid having to make that decision....
 
May 7, 2009
1,282
0
0
Visit site
zigmeister said:
Oh yes, the USADA is being so fair and reasonable. Hey, we are charging a bunch of guys with conspiracy and doping, you have 4 weeks to respond to us, although we aren't going to reveal any details to the parties accused, or we will suspend you forever!!!!

Yes, USADA is so reasonable. Clown operation.

Don't worry, Lawstrong will crush these amateurs...
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Visit site
zigmeister said:
Oh yes, the USADA is being so fair and reasonable. Hey, we are charging a bunch of guys with conspiracy and doping, you have 4 weeks to respond to us, although we aren't going to reveal any details to the parties accused, or we will suspend you forever!!!!

Yes, USADA is so reasonable. Clown operation.

You really do not understand the USADA process or even a standard criminal one. For example, when I person is charged with a crime, they are not first given all the evidence collected against them during investigation, then to decide whether to plead innocent or guilty.

They make a decision and a plea. If they plead guilty or even no contest, the case is closed and punishment is accepted, without seeing any evidence. If they plead not guilty, the case goes to trial where evidence and witnesses are presented.

Right now, the USADA is merely charging Armstrong with various doping infractions based upon their investigation, evidence indicates Armstrong committed various infractions. All he need to is either "plead guilty" and accept the punishment or "plead not guilty" and accept arbitration, where all the evidence collected against him will be presented.

There is nothing unfair about the process. I truly wish people would stop posting "fairness" statements without understanding the USADA process and how it very much parallels the criminal court process.
 
zigmeister said:
Oh yes, the USADA is being so fair and reasonable. Hey, we are charging a bunch of guys with conspiracy and doping, you have 4 weeks to respond to us, although we aren't going to reveal any details to the parties accused, or we will suspend you forever!!!!

Yes, USADA is so reasonable. Clown operation.

You think the police sends suspects an envelope with a summary of the evidence against them before summoning them to an interview?
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
Visit site
Fortyninefourteen said:
I think Sparks has already decided, and will render Armstrong subject to USADA.

All the toilet clogging is for naught. The issue is straightforward.

Armstrong will likely appeal, on day 29. But he will have to deliver something new and salient for the decision to be reversed. There will be nothing new and salient available.


I do agree. Sparks will rule against Armstrong, who will on August 22, will appeal to the 5th Circuit Court. I am sure there will also be an injunction motion against the USADA and this matter will drag on unless the 5th Circuit Court refuses to hear Armstrong's appeal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS