USADA - Armstrong

[BillytheKid]

I'm always happy.

I do get a bit vexed when a troll who only wants to distort realty keeps posting drivel that even he knows is a lie, but then again I am getting used to it, so I will be the ducks back here and just let it roll off. Carry on with your dissertation of fantasy land.

BTW, message your hero and tell him to make sure ALL of the evidence in the possession of the USADA is revealed publicly...you know, since obviously he would want this...

My hero is due process and no deals for those who are just as guilty. The fantasy is that many will never think well of the crew. The reality is Armstrong was singled out to face possible fraud charges and was tried like a politician in the press.

The picture was a joke becasue in does often come down to a judge.

 

[henryg]

If the USADA interprets the passport data one way to strip titles, does that mean all anti-doping angencies will be pressed by WADA to apply the same measures to all riders retroactively?

Or can riders with more freakish levels stay at the dance all night.

The USADA can't pass judgement on anything They can only present the case to the arbitrators. The passport data alone won't do it but they have a lot more then that.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

My hero is due process and no deals for those who are just as guilty. The fantasy is that many will never think well of the crew. The reality is Armstrong was singled out to face possible fraud charges and was tried like a politician in the press.

The reality is Armstrong was offered the same deal as everyone else. He chose to keep lying.

The picture was a joke becasue in does often come down to a judge.

I don't really care.

 

[henryg]

The precident would be a ruling where little or no evidence in the matter is made public. The USADA is federal funded thus, I believe, the rule applies.
If the full body of evidence is discosed, then you would be right. If not, then it would be an unprecedented ruling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_(United_States)

Again, this is nothing new, every doping case is handled this way. Neither Lance or the UCI ever complained about the procedures when they were applied to Vino, Valverde, Landis or Contador.

Lot's of private organizations get federal funds that does not make them state agencies.

Armstrong can choose to have a public or private arbitration and he chooses one of the 3 arbitrators. So Lance can make sure everything is made public. Bet if he goes to arbitration LA won't want it public. Although more likely if it goes to arbitration he will refuse to take part so he can claim it wasn't fair. The whole point of Armstrong's team is to get this shut down and have nothing made public.

 

[thehog]

My hero is due process and no deals for those who are just as guilty. The fantasy is that many will never think well of the crew. The reality is Armstrong was singled out to face possible fraud charges and was tried like a politician in the press.

.

Due process is great. We love it. Lance loves due process. He's all about due process whilst destroying any remnants of dope testing in cycling. His letter to the IOC in trying to remove anyone who tried to implement clean sport in today's terms is startling.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news/2006/jun06/ioc-letter.pdf

"The report confirms my innocence, but also finds that Mr. Pound along with the French lab and the French ministry have ignored the rules and broken the law. They have also refused to cooperate with the investigation in an effort to conceal the full scope of their wrongdoing. I have now retired, but for the sake of all athletes still competing who deserve a level playing field and a fair system of drug testing, the time has come to take action against these kinds of attacks before they destroy the credibility of WADA and, in turn, the international anti-doping system." Armstrong said.

 

[D-Queued]

Due process is great. We love it. Lance loves due process. He's all about due process whilst destroying any remnants of dope testing in cycling. His letter to the IOC in trying to remove anyone who tried to implement clean sport in today's terms is startling.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news/2006/jun06/ioc-letter.pdf

"The report confirms my innocence, but also finds that Mr. Pound along with the French lab and the French ministry have ignored the rules and broken the law. They have also refused to cooperate with the investigation in an effort to conceal the full scope of their wrongdoing. I have now retired, but for the sake of all athletes still competing who deserve a level playing field and a fair system of drug testing, the time has come to take action against these kinds of attacks before they destroy the credibility of WADA and, in turn, the international anti-doping system." Armstrong said.

The big lies in that statement always jump out at me.

Dave.

 

[BillytheKid]

Again, this is nothing new, every doping case is handled this way. Neither Lance or the UCI ever complained about the procedures when they were applied to Vino, Valverde, Landis or Contador.

Lot's of private organizations get federal funds that does not make them state agencies.

Armstrong can choose to have a public or private arbitration and he chooses one of the 3 arbitrators. So Lance can make sure everything is made public. Bet if he goes to arbitration LA won't want it public. Although more likely if it goes to arbitration he will refuse to take part so he can claim it wasn't fair. The whole point of Armstrong's team is to get this shut down and have nothing made public.

All of the cases you site stemed from positives. Biopassport and eye-witnesse evidence make this entirely different because it will to my knowlegde be a first.

BOTH LA and the USADA, THE CREW and the UCI stand to gain from limiting information. It's game of legal tacitcs and fingure pointing.

Wow, one of three is not exactly a winner when you don't get to choose the other two.

The BP is subjective and not well established. This case may help define that, but I doubt "guilty" levels if found here will be applied to past levels of others in the mill. Hence, they'll all get away with it, because you would have to take out half the pro field.

 

[MarkvW]

The problem may be that Sparks is, I hope, a decent and normal person. Thus he may not be persuaded by this argument. I suppose providing him with examples of LA’s previous attempts at intimidation would help, but fairly or not, he may regard the secretiveness as too self-serving.

The big question I have is: did Sparks communicate to USADA exactly how much detail he wants? It seems probably not. So if they give him more details, with no names, are they gambling? Will he get p-d off at them for not giving him more? At this stage of the game, he is very unlikely to give either side one more chance.



There is some subjectivity, yes, but I'm not sure it comes into play in this case. The usual procedure is that if the fluctuations exceed a certain level of probability, the passport is considered suspicious, and goes to an expert panel for further evaluation. Whether it ever gets to the panel is based on objective criteria, whereas the panel's final determination may be based on more subjective factors.

But--barring a coverup of a positive by UCI--none of LA's passport data was judged positive by a panel, so no subjective factors ever came into play. Most likely, though we don't know for sure, none of the data ever even reached a panel.

As others have noted, USADA will probably not be using the passport data as standalone evidence of doping, but only as supporting evidence. They don't have to demonstrate that any fluctuations indicate manipulation with very high probability IF they can show that certain fluctuations closely correlate with witness testimony that LA was blood doping at a particular time. E.g., if shortly after a date a witness claims LA transfused, there were fluctuations in his passport much greater than any in the days or weeks preceding that date, this would be powerful evidence. There isn't much an opposing expert could do except argue that such fluctuations might have happened by chance, illness, whatever. But subjectivity really doesn't play much of a role here. If one has a substantial record of LA's passports, one can determine an approximate probability of such fluctuations.

Anyway, I continue to think this case is almost entirely about witness testimony. The passport data are window dressing, an attempt to show that LA exceeded some scientific parameters. And their use could conceivably backfire on USADA, because it is possible to dope and not affect passport parameters. One thing an opposing expert could do that could really hurt USADA's case is show that other dates when witnesses claim LA manipulated his blood there were no unusual fluctuations at all. Ashenden knows this is easily possible, but try explaining to a panel why sometimes there are fluctuations and sometimes they aren't. If you're going to bring in passport data, you better be certain everything matches up. Otherwise, better to stick to witness testimony exclusively.

I look at this from the context of the early seventies when everything was skewed toward the side of "fairness for the athlete" and away from "cleanliness of the sport."

The balance between those two poles of opinion probably frames the "fairness" attitude of each judge in dope-testing cases. That "fairness" will not necessarily cut in favor of USADA.

Better that jurisdiction be a cold and emotionless process, from USADA's point of view. Never know if the "fairness" meter on an individual judge slants more toward "athlete fairness" than toward "clean sport."

 

[krinaman]

Not true. By virtue of holding a USA Cycling license, Lance Armstrong legally agreed to the rules and regulations of USA Cycling, which include jurisdiction of doping violations to the USADA and its arbitration process.

Which, even if true (as some of that is being argued in court), doesn't matter. You can't sign away your constitutional rights.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Which, even if true (as some of that is being argued in court), doesn't matter. You can't sign away your constitutional rights.

Yes you can. <- Actually, that is a misstatement. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution is not implicated in MANY private matters. This being one of those cases. Wonderboy's "unconstitutional" ramblings are nothing but that. There is little to no case to be made for subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question, contrary to what Quickstepper writes.

 

[MarkvW]

Which, even if true (as some of that is being argued in court), doesn't matter. You can't sign away your constitutional rights.

Nothing personal, but GAG ME.

The Constitution has just about nothing to do with a private contract between an athlete and the athlete's governing body. One thing that the Constitution DOES do is, to the greatest extent consistent with liberty, is preserve the individual's (USADA's and Lance's) freedom to contract.

Lance cut a deal when he signed up to race. Lance doesn't like that deal any more. Wah. Wah. Wah. Unconstitutional. Wah. Wah. Wah.

 

[BillytheKid]

Nothing personal, but GAG ME.

The Constitution has just about nothing to do with a private contract between an athlete and the athlete's governing body. One thing that the Constitution DOES do is, to the greatest extent consistent with liberty, is preserve the individual's (USADA's and Lance's) freedom to contract.

Lance cut a deal when he signed up to race. Lance doesn't like that deal any more. Wah. Wah. Wah. Unconstitutional. Wah. Wah. Wah.

The Man of Constant Sorrow...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsdCpqPs_UI

 

[krinaman]

Yes you can. <- Actually, that is a misstatement. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution is not implicated in MANY private matters. This being one of those cases. Wonderboy's "unconstitutional" ramblings are nothing but that.

Your opinion is noted.

However, the original point I was making was that Armstrong's compliant filed in court is regarding his 5th amendment rights. I was pointing that out because several posters were saying things like "USADA is following their rules and LA agreed to them therefore there is no due process violation".

As for this being one of those private matters not implicated by the Constitution I really can't say. I'm certainly not a legal expert but I'm assuming LA must have some sort of case or it would of been dismissed by now.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Which, even if true (as some of that is being argued in court), doesn't matter. You can't sign away your constitutional rights.

When you sign an agreement that basically is what you are doing, giving up your rights to be subject to their rules.

If the Lances constitutional rights have been impinged then I am sure Judge Sparks will rule in his favour - in fact it is quite strange that if it were a constitutional issue, that he did not already rule, hmmmm.

 

[MarkvW]

When you sign an agreement that basically is what you are doing, giving up your rights to be subject to their rules.

If the Lances constitutional rights have been impinged then I am sure Judge Sparks will rule in his favour - in fact it is quite strange that if it were a constitutional issue, that he did not already rule, hmmmm.

Nothing strange. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue.

 

[BillytheKid]

When you sign an agreement that basically is what you are doing, giving up your rights to be subject to their rules.

If the Lances constitutional rights have been impinged then I am sure Judge Sparks will rule in his favour - in fact it is quite strange that if it were a constitutional issue, that he did not already rule, hmmmm.

A signed contract can always be challegned in court. What the merits are is a matter for the court to decide. Constitutional Rights are never given up by any contract. The question is most conctactual cases arises out of the many facets of the agreement and if they have been implemented according the agreement. A court may be ask to decided on the constitutionality of a contract.

 

[Apollonius]

Judge Spark regarding the USADA investigation against Armstrong: "I'm not a fisher person, but I do know the smell of bad fish,"

Right on!!


I suppose all of those here lauding Spark when he threw out the initial bloated case papers that Armstrong filed will suddenly start attacking him?

 

[Irish2009]

@Billythekid, perhaps you can (as you've claimed in a previous post ) tell the clinic when exactly did Valvarde test positive ,or did the UCI perhaps just tell you?

 

[eleven]

No, no it isn't. Even if he gets a favorable judgment of some sort, his attorneys have still fumbled the ball a couple of times only to be pulled out of the fire by the judge and USADA not opposing their missteps. You don't know what you're talking about.

You continue to presume that this is strictly a legal battle. I suggest otherwise. It's a legal battle providing cover for a PR battle that is far more important.

The idea that Judge Sparks would declare that USADA does not have jurisdiction to follow its own arbitration rules that Armstrong etal agreed to is a bit far-fetched, right?

I'm guessing the Armstrong representatives realize that as well. But that's not the entire point.

 

[BillytheKid]

@Billythekid, perhaps you can (as you've claimed in a previous post ) tell the clinic when exactly did Valvarde test positive ,or did the UCI perhaps just tell you?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-indignant-over-possible-suspension

says they used DNA evidence...Anything like that here?

 

[henryg]

All of the cases you site stemed from positives. Biopassport and eye-witnesse evidence make this entirely different because it will to my knowlegde be a first.

BOTH LA and the USADA, THE CREW and the UCI stand to gain from limiting information. It's game of legal tacitcs and fingure pointing.

Wow, one of three is not exactly a winner when you don't get to choose the other two.

The BP is subjective and not well established. This case may help define that, but I doubt "guilty" levels if found here will be applied to past levels of others in the mill. Hence, they'll all get away with it, because you would have to take out half the pro field.

Valverde, Basso, Millar and tons of other athletes that were sanctioned never tested positive. There is nothing special about the Armstrong case other then the depth and breath of the corruption. Plus there may be a positive in evidence that was buried by the UCI.

As to arbitration the CAS rules are: USADA picks and arbitrator, Armstrong picks an arbitrator then the two designated arbitrators agree on who will be the president (3rd arbitrartor) of the panel. Failing such agreement, the President of the Ordinary Arbitration Division makes this selection instead of the two arbitrators. You want Armstrong to pick all 3 arbitrators? That's how we got where we are. He bought off the corrupt UCI.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-indignant-over-possible-suspension

says they used DNA evidence...Anything like that here?

Since you have the google machine handy, do some reading on Kyle Leogrande and get back to us.

 

[BillytheKid]

Since you have the google machine handy, do some reading on Kyle Leogrande and get back to us.

So cycling news has it wrong then?

Is there any DNA evidence in the LA case? If so, let us all know.

 

[snackattack]

If the Lances constitutional rights have been impinged then I am sure Judge Sparks will rule in his favour - in fact it is quite strange that if it were a constitutional issue, that he did not already rule, hmmmm.

The whole process is unconstitutional sequential Lawstrongs rights are violated as well.

haha why didn't Sparks rule yet?

The judge simply demands to know all now them lewd bureaucrats refuse to obey and this is a nice moment to force them infidels to come up with the beef before it's shoved under the rug while Lawstrong get's railroaded, thats where their shady guantanamo rulebook(s) go titanic in the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the Clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings)

 

[thehog]

So cycling news has it wrong then?

Is there any DNA evidence in the LA case? If so, let us all know.

Sure there is. Live, living, human DNA called witnesses.

Oh and some AFLD samples. Plenty of DNA on those.