USADA - Armstrong

[veganrob]

Sparks’ concerns and subsequently delayed ruling on jurisdiction were primarily based around the specifics provided by USADA, or rather apparent lack of ...

Hope you are not forgetting Sparks question about why he should have jurisdiction

 

[snackattack]

Hope you are not forgetting Sparks question about why he should have jurisdiction

Sparks only has to deal with the US Supreme Court and how the consequences of his decision relate, will be upheld.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sparks only has to deal with the US Supreme Court and how the consequences of his decision relate, will be upheld.

 

[BillytheKid]

Sorry to dissapoint so many here, but I agree with this McQ in part:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-im-not-trying-to-save-lance-armstrongs-skin

WADA with the USADA are focusing almost soley on cycling. I not one to claim that there no fire here, but I see so many other sports with the same symptoms, but there is no vehement pursuit other than lip service that they come along with there testing. Certainly there is no reaching back to pursue what has been the big prize in cycling.

So much Puerto evidence was tossed by the Spanish courts. There would have been a hayday if all the blood was DNA tested. Hits would have come from other sports. What McQ is alluding too is the hypocracy of WADA. Taking down one big dog and damaging cycling for years will solve nothing and it is likely that it is polictally motivated. Focusing all-sport wide testing from independant international labs is the better fight. Once this affair has concluded, it will be business as usual. Cycling will take a hit for year's to come, because of a ruling that goes over ten years back because it does not look to this day and to the future.

It really achieves little.

McQ may have been outclass, but he is right in the sense that the singular focus on this smacks of politics from which other sport interests will only bennefit.

For Armstrong's titles to be handed to other convicted dopers is classy victory for all of sport. It tells you everything you need to know. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[JRTinMA]

Sorry to dissapoint so many here, but I agree with this McQ in part:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-im-not-trying-to-save-lance-armstrongs-skin

WADA with the USADA are focusing almost soley on cycling. I not one to claim that there no fire here, but I see so many other sports with the same symptoms, but there is no vehement pursuit other than lip service that they come along with there testing. Certainly there is no reaching back to pursue what has been the big prize in cycling.

So much Puerto evidence was tossed by the Spanish courts. There would have been a hayday if all the blood was DNA tested. Hits would have come from other sports. What McQ is alluding too is the hypocracy of WADA. Taking down one big dog and damaging cycling for years will solve nothing and it is likely that it is polictally motivated. Focusing all-sport wide testing from independant international labs is the better fight. Once this affair has concluded, it will be business as usual. Cycling will take a hit for year's to come, because of a ruling that goes over ten years back because it does not look to this day and to the future.

It really achieves little.

McQ may have been outclass, but he is right in the sense that the singular focus on this smacks of politics from which other sport interests will only bennefit.

For Armstrong's titles to be handed to other convicted dopers is classy victory for all of sport. It tells you everything you need to know. There is nothing new under the sun.

If the process was being fairly applied to everybody then this wouldn't be a witch hunt now would it?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Sorry to dissapoint so many here, but I agree with this McQ in part:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-im-not-trying-to-save-lance-armstrongs-skin

WADA with the USADA are focusing almost soley on cycling. I not one to claim that there no fire here, but I see so many other sports with the same symptoms, but there is no vehement pursuit other than lip service that they come along with there testing. Certainly there is no reaching back to pursue what has been the big prize in cycling.

So much Puerto evidence was tossed by the Spanish courts. There would have been a hayday if all the blood was DNA tested. Hits would have come from other sports. What McQ is alluding too is the hypocracy of WADA. Taking down one big dog and damaging cycling for years will solve nothing and it is likely that it is polictally motivated. Focusing all-sport wide testing from independant international labs is the better fight. Once this affair has concluded, it will be business as usual. Cycling will take a hit for year's to come, because of a ruling that goes over ten years back because it does not look to this day and to the future.

It really achieves little.

McQ may have been outclass, but he is right in the sense that the singular focus on this smacks of politics from which other sport interests will only bennefit.

For Armstrong's titles to be handed to other convicted dopers is classy victory for all of sport. It tells you everything you need to know. There is nothing new under the sun.

So the USADA should ignore the evidence it has that Armstrong doped because other sports have dopers who haven't been caught in the numbers that cycling dopers have? I don't think any of us are surprised that's your opinion...

 

[BillytheKid]

If the process was being fairly applied to everybody then this wouldn't be a witch hunt now would it?

The term witch-hunt exists for a reason, eh?

 

[snackattack]

Hope you are not forgetting Sparks question about why he should have jurisdiction

Maybe Sparks is looking at a way to simply take jurisdiction ! Who knows !

When the threshold to a fair and open process aren't met; elements that Comprise Due Process of Law in Judicial Proceedings.

In this instance Sparks is hinting on the principle of `Equality of Arms´.

 

[BillytheKid]

So the USADA should ignore the evidence it has that Armstrong doped because other sports have dopers who haven't been caught in the numbers that cycling dopers have? I don't think any of us are surprised that's your opinion...

I just saying it achieves little in the greater fight. I have always believe that focus on the here and now and the future would be better. I doubt the UCI is the only governing body that has a problem. For me, human nature remains a constant.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Maybe Sparks is looking at a way to simply take jurisdiction ! Who knows !

When the threshold to a fair and open process aren't met; elements that Comprise Due Process of Law in Judicial Proceedings.

In this instance Sparks is hinting on the principle of `Equality of Arms´.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I just saying it achieves little in the greater fight. I have always believe that focus on the here and now and the future would be better. I doubt the UCI is the only governing body that has a problem. For me, human nature remains a constant.

I suppose if Armstrong had better conections in life and a not trashy southern childhood, he could walk away from justice like the walk from the bridge at Chappaquiddick.

Ted Kennedy reference? Soooo disappointed as I was really hoping for a reference to Jesus there...frowny face.

 

[Turner29]

The term witch-hunt exists for a reason, eh?

In essence, then, you find it acceptable that Armstrong defrauded from SCA Promotions millions of dollars?

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Come on folks, stay cool and stay factual.

Susan

 

[Turner29]

I just saying it achieves little in the greater fight. I have always believe that focus on the here and now and the future would be better. I doubt the UCI is the only governing body that has a problem. For me, human nature remains a constant.

So, instead of a clean sport, you would rather one having the appearance of being clean, such as the FIFA? Or NFL for that matter.

I applaud Cycling for being the sport with the hardest controls on doping.

 

[snackattack]

http://pics.livejournal.com/bookshop/pic/003kqet0

Armstrong’s lawyer Herman believes the system of arbitration will not provide a just and fair playing field. USADA’s record of cases which go to arbitration is 58-2, according to USA Today.

“The Christians had a better record versus the lions than the athletes there," Herman told the judge.
_______________________________

Same stuff pending at ECHR.

 

[noddy69]

Armstrong’s lawyer Herman believes the system of arbitration will not provide a just and fair playing field. USADA’s record of cases which go to arbitration is 58-2, according to USA Today.

“The Christians had a better record versus the lions than the athletes there," Herman told the judge.
_______________________________

Same stuff pending at ECHR.

By just and fair he must mean not enough guilty people getting off. USADA doing a good job it seems.

 

[Turner29]

Armstrong’s lawyer Herman believes the system of arbitration will not provide a just and fair playing field. USADA’s record of cases which go to arbitration is 58-2, according to USA Today.

“The Christians had a better record versus the lions than the athletes there," Herman told the judge.
_______________________________

Same stuff pending at ECHR.

Federal Court conviction rates are something like 85%. For 60 cases, that would equate to a 51-7 win rate, with a higher burden of proof.

More smoke by Armstrong.

 

[Race Radio]

Yes, really. Let the class know what impact that had on the case?

You seem to mistake PR for legal process.

How's that federal conviction on a mysterious new drug circa 1999 working out for ya?

Do you really think that getting your filing dismissed by the judge and getting talked to like a 3rd grader is a good thing? Really?

Armstrong's Federal legal entanglements are far from over. Enjoy the peace for now. If he was smart he would stop burning so much cash on the USADA case as he will need it for something that matters

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Armstrong’s lawyer Herman believes the system of arbitration will not provide a just and fair playing field. USADA’s record of cases which go to arbitration is 58-2, according to USA Today.

“The Christians had a better record versus the lions than the athletes there," Herman told the judge.
_______________________________

Same stuff pending at ECHR.

Just maybe because the 58 were guilty. It is ridiculous to refer to prior arbitration outcomes to establish and assess 'fairness' of a process. Regardless, USADA may volunteer a more compelling disclosure that will make accepting the suspension much less painful than live witness testimony going public.

 

[Race Radio]

Ahhh, Wonderboy and Clinton....and Boxer, and Pelosi, and Kerry. So nice of him to make phone calls to support his friend. lots of phone calls.

Stay tuned

 

[Race Radio]

Not entirely off topic: I was asked by a friend at work who is only starting to entertain seriously the possibility that LA might actually have doped (smart guy with a life long interest in cycling and triathlon but seems to struggle to make the leap) how the UCI is funded. Just had a look and can't easily find anything informative.

And before anyone pipes up, I've already let him know where they got/get some of their funding

Here is a good overview

http://inrng.com/2010/08/ucis-financials-made-public/

 

[Race Radio]

Sparks only has to deal with the US Supreme Court and how the consequences of his decision relate, will be upheld.

What?

This will never get to the Supreme Court. Even if he sided with Armstrong, which he will not, it would not get past the 5th as they have a long history of upholding arbitration agreements

 

[Race Radio]

Sorry to dissapoint so many here, but I agree with this McQ in part:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-im-not-trying-to-save-lance-armstrongs-skin

WADA with the USADA are focusing almost soley on cycling. I not one to claim that there no fire here, but I see so many other sports with the same symptoms, but there is no vehement pursuit other than lip service that they come along with there testing. Certainly there is no reaching back to pursue what has been the big prize in cycling.

So much Puerto evidence was tossed by the Spanish courts. There would have been a hayday if all the blood was DNA tested. Hits would have come from other sports. What McQ is alluding too is the hypocracy of WADA. Taking down one big dog and damaging cycling for years will solve nothing and it is likely that it is polictally motivated. Focusing all-sport wide testing from independant international labs is the better fight. Once this affair has concluded, it will be business as usual. Cycling will take a hit for year's to come, because of a ruling that goes over ten years back because it does not look to this day and to the future.

It really achieves little.

McQ may have been outclass, but he is right in the sense that the singular focus on this smacks of politics from which other sport interests will only bennefit.

For Armstrong's titles to be handed to other convicted dopers is classy victory for all of sport. It tells you everything you need to know. There is nothing new under the sun.

Completely incorrect

WADA focuses on all Olympic sports, not just cycling. The do not test cycling more, in fact cycling is not even the 1st or 2nd most tested.

Seranno would not release any of the Puerto Evidence. It was not until he went on vacation that CONI was able to secure Valverde's samples via the proper channels

Are you suggesting that USADA should ignore over a dozen witnesses? Really?

 

[D-Queued]

Something doesn't square with my understanding so I have another question.

Sparks has asked the USADA to provide more detail on the evidence. Why?

I'm presuming the USADA have played by their rules and the charge sheet was sufficient for it's purposes. I'm also presuming Sparks knows that, he knows there's a different process for courts. As this case is primarily about jurisdiction, I don't know why Sparks needs to see more meat on the bone re the charges. How is it relevant if the USADA have done it right with their initial charge sheet?

Sparks asked this, because this is one of the questions raised by Armstrong's counsel. Simple.

To not ask this would mean he couldn't 'judge' on that question.

Note that he did not actually ask for more evidence. He simply asked why they had not provided more evidence.

This is a very different question.

In terms of what Sparks did say, this was my favorite:

"Why would they not rule for you if it's so clear?" Sparks asked Armstrong attorney Tim Herman. "Where do I have jurisdiction when you can litigate in arbitration?"

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/10/2944112/armstrong-doping-case-in-federal.html#storylink=cpy

In other words, you are wasting my time... again...

Dave.

 

[buckle]

Armstrong's ex-fanbois are looking for a new hero and found one in the shape of Judge Sam Sparks.