USADA - Armstrong

[Turner29]

That is a painfully weak argument. You don't throw that kind of thing in front of a judge unless you are desperate.

Especially when the "Christians vs. lions" comment is added.

I would have loved to see Sparks reaction to that!

 

[MarkvW]

If only people knew the half of it. That was probably the tamest of the incidents.

There has been a serial campagin of intimidation and "following".

Thanks for the speculation, hog.

 

[Turner29]

What's crazy is that the judge states, ""I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks."

Yet the Lance Haters don't seem to care about this. I just ask all the 'Haters' to put themselves in LA's shoes and see how they would feel to be in this position. To me, this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. I would want to go to arbitration if I was in a similar situation, would you?

It's like saying the Police showing up at your door and accuse you of theft or some other crime. You ask for evidence and they say, we will give you that after we go to trial in front of a judge...

Basically, that is exactly what happens. Police never provide evidence upon arrest. They execute warrants and it is the trial process to determine if sufficient evidence exists to convict.

However, if Judge Sparks has some issues with the USADA charging letter, these issues are not particularly relevant and can easily be addressed by the USADA by adding additional details as to dates and times, or regarding the Blood Passport violations, test specifics of what and when.

That is all

 

[Berzin]

What is Judge Sparks asking for that will allow him to rule next Friday?

Is he looking for the USADA to hand over any preliminary evidence?

Will we finally get SOMETHING to hang our collective hats on besides the same rehashed rumors and innuendos?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Again, with all due respect, the Order granting the extension to file briefs last week (number 43 on the Court's docket in PACER) contains no such statement by Judge Sparks. This is what the order granting the request (and denying it in part) actually said:

"The Court GRANTS Armstrong's motion insofar as it asks for an extension to midnight Central time on this date; it is otherwise denied. As Defendants point out, it is incumbent upon Armstrong to establish the jurisdiction of this Court, and he has had since at least July 9, the date he filed this lawsuit, to marshal his evidence on that point. The Court is not inclined to penalize Defendants by substantially reducing their allotted time for filing a reply brief, simply because of Armstrong's delay. However, because Defendants' motion is potentially dispositive of this case, the Court wishes to have the benefit of meaningful briefing by Armstrong."

Nowhere did the court conclude that Armstrong had not yet satisfied the Court with respect to the jurisdictional issue. The court merely stated that Armstrong has the burden of proof on that issue, and that he had already had since July 9 to "marshal his evidence on that point" and as such, the Court was not going to grant any more time than the one day which was granted, principally because he didn't want to penalize the defendants by limiting their time to respond. Still, the court relieved Armstrong from the failure to timely file that had occurred by reason of his lawyers' misreading of the local rules re: time for filing response, noting that "the Court wishes to have the benefit of meaningful breifing by Armstrong."

But again, with all due respect, the court did not say what you suggest was said, either expressly or by implication. Instead, the Court noted who has the burden of proof and simply said that he was not inclined to grant the full time requested by Armstrong's lawyers.

I will say it again: I have read all of the filings. I do think we just will have to agree to disagree about what they say and what they mean.

With all due respect, quote my last post instead of the one prior to that.

Secondly, your whole point is that Armstrong addressed the jurisdictional issue in his second filing (the VERY JULY 9th FILING YOU KEEP REFERRING TO AS HAVING ADDRESSED SMJ AND THE ONE THE JUDGE REFERS TO IN HIS EXTENSION AS NOT HAVING CONTAINED A SUFFICIENT ARGUMENT FOR JURISDICTION). Why again is the judge emphasizing the highlighted? Why does the motion to extend the time (something that to this point you said never happened but now whammo you recognize that it DID happen<- that is me being condescending) bother to mention AGAIN the burden? The motion for time to extend was to answer the USADA's filing for dismissal. EVERYONE knew that jurisdiction was an issue from day 1, so the judge added it why? The request for extension needed only a ruling by the court. There was no reason to add in "INCUMBENT UPON ARMSTRONG" nor to mention that since his second filing (July 9) he had yet to "MARSHAL" the evidence for jurisdiction in the wording AT ALL unless Armstrong had FAILED to address the exact point you claim he so effectively did in his JULY 9th FILING. If all he was saying, as you suggest implicitly, was that Armstrong's attorneys had the burden, why is it again that you keep referring to the July 9th filing as PROOF that there is SMJ? Because I am sorry, but the words used by Sparks there certainly by implication suggest that he had yet to address jurisdiction. It's right there is plain English, I quote "to establish." I don't see any recognition at all that they have established jurisdiction and he is just reminding them that it is their job even though in their July 9th filing they did address it, but he is just making sure they knew that they needed to do something they had already done.

Thirdly, for someone who has read all of the filings, you only seem to mention the arguments in Armstrong's, so you will have to understand why I question why you still haven't addressed them. You seem pretty focused on one side of the ticker here, and with all due respect, I think that reveals more than you would like.

You are correct, we will have to agree to disagree...personally, I think you just have a hard time saying "I was wrong"...

 

[MarkvW]

With all due respect, quote my last post instead of the one prior to that.

Secondly, your whole point is that Armstrong addressed the jurisdictional issue in his second filing (the VERY JULY 9th FILING YOU KEEP REFERRING TO AS HAVING ADDRESSED SMJ AND THE ONE THE JUDGE REFERS TO IN HIS EXTENSION AS NOT HAVING CONTAINED A SUFFICIENT ARGUMENT FOR JURISDICTION). Why again is the judge emphasizing the highlighted? Why does the motion to extend the time (something that to this point you said never happened but now whammo you recognize that it DID happen<- that is me being condescending) bother to mention AGAIN the burden? The motion for time to extend was to answer the USADA's filing for dismissal. EVERYONE knew that jurisdiction was an issue from day 1, so the judge added it why? The request for extension needed only a ruling by the court. There was no reason to add in "INCUMBENT UPON ARMSTRONG" nor to mention that since his second filing (July 9) he had yet to "MARSHAL" the evidence for jurisdiction in the wording AT ALL unless Armstrong had FAILED to address the exact point you claim he so effectively did in his JULY 9th FILING.

Thirdly, for someone who has read all of the filings, you only seem to mention the arguments in Armstrong's, so you will have to understand why I question why you still haven't addressed them. You seem pretty focused on one side of the ticker here, and with all due respect, I think that reveals more than you would like.

You are correct, we will have to agree to disagree...personally, I think you just have a hard time saying "I was wrong"...

It's all just reading tea leaves anyway. At bottom, we are all just speculating about what the judge is really thinking . . ..

 

[QuickStepper]

With all due respect, quote my last post instead of the one prior to that.

Secondly, your whole point is that Armstrong addressed the jurisdictional issue in his second filing (the VERY JULY 9th FILING YOU KEEP REFERRING TO AS HAVING ADDRESSED SMJ AND THE ONE THE JUDGE REFERS TO IN HIS EXTENSION AS NOT HAVING CONTAINED A SUFFICIENT ARGUMENT FOR JURISDICTION). Why again is the judge emphasizing the highlighted? Why does the motion to extend the time (something that to this point you said never happened but now whammo you recognize that it DID happen<- that is me being condescending) bother to mention AGAIN the burden? The motion for time to extend was to answer the USADA's filing for dismissal. EVERYONE knew that jurisdiction was an issue from day 1, so the judge added it why? The request for extension needed only a ruling by the court. There was no reason to add in "INCUMBENT UPON ARMSTRONG" nor to mention that since his second filing (July 9) he had yet to "MARSHAL" the evidence for jurisdiction in the wording AT ALL unless Armstrong had FAILED to address the exact point you claim he so effectively did in his JULY 9th FILING.

Thirdly, for someone who has read all of the filings, you only seem to mention the arguments in Armstrong's, so you will have to understand why you still haven't addressed them. You seem pretty focused on one side of the ticker here, and with all due respect, I think that reveals more than you would like.

You are correct, we will have to agree to disagree...personally, I think you just have a hard time saying "I was wrong"...

I am finished responding to you. My last post was quite clear. I don't have time to waste on this exercise and have no vested interest in how the court rules. You are free to believe whatever you wish. Have a nice day.

 

[spalco]

I am finished responding to you. My last post was quite clear. I don't have time to waste on this exercise and have no vested interest in how the court rules. You are free to believe whatever you wish. Have a nice day.

Even if I'm also annoying you, I have to say, that imo (as a non-American, who knows little about US law) you didn't provide much to further the discussion here.

You gave some possible arguments Armstrong could use, and a summary of what he said, but that's not analysis. Being a lawyer you know, that pretty much anything and everything can be argued, but the question is what merit the argument has.

Armstrong's lawyers said plenty, obviously, but did they say anything worth saying?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It's all just reading tea leaves anyway. At bottom, we are all just speculating about what the judge is really thinking . . ..

Oh, I agree completely. Only Quickstepper seems to know EXACTLY what the tea leaves mean.

And now that his interpretation is questioned, he wants to take his ball and go home. I personally find it interesting that he takes the time to delineate lengthy responses that he feels prove Armstrong has adequately established SMJ, yet he now claims to have no real interest here.

As I mentioned to him, I just wish he would at least once really address the strength of the USADA position, but all we ever get is why Armstrong has satisfied the Iqbal/Twombly standard on the point of jurisdiction with mere conclusory statements.

 

[python]

Thirdly, for someone who has read all of the filings, you only seem to mention the arguments in Armstrong's.... You seem pretty focused on one side of the ticker here, and with all due respect, I think that reveals more than you would like.

You are correct, we will have to agree to disagree...personally, I think you just have a hard time saying "I was wrong"...

to me it was obvious from the getgo...hence i avoided the bloke.

still, one of the more polite and civil armstrong (fill the blank) is preferable to the chaff we got lately from the less sophisticated fanboys.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Again, with all due respect, the Order granting the extension to file briefs last week (number 43 on the Court's docket in PACER) contains no such statement by Judge Sparks. This is what the order granting the request (and denying it in part) actually said:

"The Court GRANTS Armstrong's motion insofar as it asks for an extension to midnight Central time on this date; it is otherwise denied. As Defendants point out, it is incumbent upon Armstrong to establish the jurisdiction of this Court, and he has had since at least July 9, the date he filed this lawsuit, to marshal his evidence on that point. The Court is not inclined to penalize Defendants by substantially reducing their allotted time for filing a reply brief, simply because of Armstrong's delay. However, because Defendants' motion is potentially dispositive of this case, the Court wishes to have the benefit of meaningful briefing by Armstrong."

Nowhere did the court conclude that Armstrong had not yet satisfied the Court with respect to the jurisdictional issue. The court merely stated that Armstrong has the burden of proof on that issue, and that he had already had since July 9 to "marshal his evidence on that point" and as such, the Court was not going to grant any more time than the one day which was granted, principally because he didn't want to penalize the defendants by limiting their time to respond. Still, the court relieved Armstrong from the failure to timely file that had occurred by reason of his lawyers' misreading of the local rules re: time for filing response, noting that "the Court wishes to have the benefit of meaningful breifing by Armstrong."

But again, with all due respect, the court did not say what you suggest was said, either expressly or by implication. Instead, the Court noted who has the burden of proof and simply said that he was not inclined to grant the full time requested by Armstrong's lawyers.

I will say it again: I have read all of the filings. I do think we just will have to agree to disagree about what they say and what they mean.

Oh wait, it gets better, the July 9th filing the judge refers to is the FIRST (not the one you keep flaunting as proof Armstrong raised a federal question) fling by Armstrong's attorneys...you know, the one the judge threw out and MENTIONED THAT THEY HAD NOT SATISFIED THE IQBAL/TWOMBLY STANDARD IN RELATION TO JURISDICTION. So it certainly sounds even surer that the judge is AGAIN telling Armstrong's attorneys to focus on the real issue. But yea, I am sure you're right, it was just to inform them of the BOP they had already satisfied, he just wanted to be redundant...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

to me it was obvious from the getgo...hence i avoided the bloke.

still, one of the more polite and civil armstrong (fill the blank) is preferable to the chaff we got lately from the less sophisticated fanboys.

I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt as he is obviously well versed in the law, but when all he ever does is make arguments he claims show that Armstrong established SMJ for a federal question AND diversity without EVER ADDRESSING the arguments raised by the USADA (though he claims to have read them), I have to start to question his impartiality. Then when he pulled out the "I have no vested interest" card, that familiar refrain from Shakespeare starts to ring in my head...

 

[snackattack]

It's all just reading tea leaves anyway. At bottom, we are all just speculating about what the judge is really thinking . . ..

We know `lets kill the wildebeest´...

"I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks.

... that must make that corrupt bunch of self portrait smoochers reeling from shock left in a stink.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

We know `lets kill the wildebeest´...



... that must make that corrupt bunch of self portrait smoochers reeling from shock left in a stink.

 

[Turner29]

What is Judge Sparks asking for that will allow him to rule next Friday?

Is he looking for the USADA to hand over any preliminary evidence?

Will we finally get SOMETHING to hang our collective hats on besides the same rehashed rumors and innuendos?

No. We will merely see a charging statement provides more specifics as to what Armstrong is being accused.

Evidence will come during arbitration, as is this is the applicable due process.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

NOTE TO ALL:

Stay polite or face sanctions.

Susan

 

[snackattack]

Evidence will come during arbitration, as is this is the applicable due process.

NO, and NO, Sparks gospel is loud and clear !

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No. We will merely see a charging statement provides more specifics as to what Armstrong is being accused.

Evidence will come during arbitration, as is this is the applicable due process.

I wouldn't be so sure - Judge Sparks said there was "not one name, not one event, not one date"- he clearly would like to see some substance to USADAs case. So, they may show one of the cards that they are holding.

 

[Roland Rat]

NOTE TO ALL:

Stay polite or face sanctions.

Susan

I don't mean be rude, Susan, but you don't have jurisdiction to issue any sanctions. My mate Paddy will back me up on this. I'll get him to write a letter confirming this as soon as he's sobered up enough to pick up a pen.

(Hopefully some time tomorrow.)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't mean be rude, Susan, but you don't have jurisdiction to issue any sanctions. My mate Paddy will back me up on this. I'll get him to write a letter confirming this as soon as he's sobered up enough to pick up a pen.

(Hopefully some time tomorrow.)

Good point, "not one name, not one event, not one date" - its a disgrace, what about due process.

 

[Velodude]

Hamilton is not the only person connected with this case to be followed, threatened, and harassed. There is a pattern of harassment that only enhances the conspiracy argument.

I can't recall one cycling related witness for SCA who Armstrong did not ring up just before the Armstrong v SCA Promotions deposition hearing in 2006.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm guessing there are some A-strong intimidation stories that would curl hair but we've just not heard them......yet.

 

[Velodude]

Putting a face to the name - Sparks J

Happy not growling countenance. Could do with a bit of exercise and needs to check to see if he has blood pressure problems.

 

[mewmewmew13]

We are counting on him...

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I don't mean be rude, Susan, but you don't have jurisdiction to issue any sanctions. My mate Paddy will back me up on this. I'll get him to write a letter confirming this as soon as he's sobered up enough to pick up a pen.

(Hopefully some time tomorrow.)

You can't intimidate me......

Susan