USADA - Armstrong

[Race Radio]

All sarcasm aside, am I the only one here who finds it significant from a legal and jurisdictional point of view that USAC has in Stephen Hess' letter dated August 17, taken the position that UCI gets to call the shots as to whether or not there will or won't be any arbitration, and that when it comes to UCI vs. USADA, it is UCI's "interpretation" of the WADA Code and the jurisdictional issues that control, not USADA's?

In the third full paragraph at page one of his letter, Hess writes:

"With respect to that esoteric legal issue (jurisdiction). . . USAC is not only a National Governing Bocy recognized by USOC with obligations in that capacity, but it is also a National Federation recognized by UCI, whom the IOC in turn recognizes as the International Federation that governs cycling. In UCI's capacity as the IOC-recognized International Federation for cycling, USAC believes that UCI has the power to express its interpretation of WADA's Anti-Doping Code, its application to international cycling events, and the Code's jurisdictional provisions in matters within the scope of its authority. Accordingly, to the extent that USADA asserts that it has the capacity to act under UCI authority through USA Cycling, UCI has a diametrically opposite view, and USADA's asssertion that it is acting on behalf of UCI (through USA Cycling) is not consistent with UCI's own interpretation of the meaning and effect of UCI's anti-doping commitments and responsibilities...".

If I were Judge Sparks, this would be one point that would immediately grab my attention. If USADA had argued and conceded (as they are alleged to have done at the last hearing) that its authority to proceed with the arbitration and/or to impose sanctions -- at least as against Armstrong-- is derived because USADA is purporting to act on behalf of USA Cycling (because Armstrong's license was alleged to have been issued by USAC), and USAC is now saying "stop and obey the instructions of UCI", that would be a huge hurdle to get over.

I don't pretend to know the intricacies of the WADA Code or the rules applicable to USA Cycling via UCI, but it seems pretty clear that the pyramid runs IOC--->UCI--->USAC--->USADA in terms of organizational structure and rules implementation. And where, as here, the UCI is saying to USAC "hey, you have no authority to proceed here, and neither does your testing agency, USADA" and USAC agrees with that assessment, what real choice does USADA have?

I know people here are going to claim that I'm favoring one side or the other, but this is only my reaction to the documents that have been filed today thus far. I am waiting eagerly to see what USADA will have to say. I keep checking the docket hourly, but nothing yet from USADA.

Nope
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103160637/USADA-Motion-to-Dimiss-2

USA Cycling’s rules, which explicitly incorporate the USADA Protocol, and state the Protocol “shall prevail over any USA Cycling Regulation to the contrary.”

 

[QuickStepper]

Nope
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103160637/USADA-Motion-to-Dimiss-2

Thanks for the heads up. Reading it now.

 

[DomesticDomestique]

One thing that needs to be pointed out in response to Fat Pat's allegation is that Armstrong found a loophole in the UCI rules that Pat quotes. Pat says that as a UCI Pro Team member LA was unable to race in national events controlled by USADA, per UCI rules. Lance raced Gila with Mellow Johnny's, to bypass that rule. Bad move on Pat's part to base everything on the fact that Lance only participated in international events, therefore removing USADA jurisdiction, when that is FALSE.

 

[Trailzz]

Looks like the AP is running with the headline that US cycling is backing LA


http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8278550/us-cycling-body-sides-lance-armstrong-usada

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, I didn't intentionally leave out WADA. It's my understanding though that WADA is only a rule-making authority that has adopted a Code of regulations that must be followed by all of the varioius participants in the chain described above (IOC, UCI, USAC and USADA, as well as any other NGB's and whatever testing/investigatory bodies those NGB's may have to whom they delegate powers).

I don't pretend either to understand the WADA Code, but it sounds like you're suggesting that there's something in the WADA regulations that gives USADA independent jurisdiction-- separate and apart from USA Cycling's delegation of authority to test and enforce the WADA Code with respect to USA-licensed cyclists within the territorial boundaries of the US and with respect to national-sanctioned races.

Are you saying is that the UCI's position that USADA only has authority to test in national-sanctioned events and not with respect to internationally-sanctioned races, is wrong?

Are also saying that UCI's position that because it asked USADA to "investigate" that this request didn't also include the authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings or to impose sanctions, is also wrong?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand.

Well when you ask to loaded (and irrelevant ) questions - then you are trying to get me to say something I did not.

 

[BotanyBay]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103160637/USADA-Motion-to-Dimiss-2

USADA's very elegant dismantling of the smokescreen

In Page 8 of the response (agreed, very well written), the USADA gives us a peek of their cards:

Where, as here, the charges are based on witness evidence rather than laboratory analysis of samples

 

[BotanyBay]

Looks like Lance has called upon all of his horses and all of his men:

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8278550/us-cycling-body-sides-lance-armstrong-usada

The battle happened already. Now we wait.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Well when you ask to loaded (and irrelevant ) questions - then you are trying to get me to say something I did not.

Yea well, this is the same guy who claimed last week that Armstrong's attorneys had made a solid argument that there was a federal question and/or diversity jurisdiction when it was clear to anyone who can read that the argument was ridiculously off base. Heck, Armstrong's attorneys have even dropped the claim now...If it quacks like a duck...

 

[goober]

I give up. Which case? Tell me!

I give up also, because there is no such case. My point.

 

[the big ring]

Looks like the AP is running with the headline that US cycling is backing LA


http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8278550/us-cycling-body-sides-lance-armstrong-usada

Other headlines floated that morning were:

birds of a feather
bff sticks by bff
mates look out for one another

 

[goober]

In Page 8 of the response (agreed, very well written), the USADA gives us a peek of their cards:

Where, as here, the charges are based on witness evidence rather than laboratory analysis of samples

So they are striking "urine sample results from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland were indicative of EPO use"?

 

[the big ring]

One thing that needs to be pointed out in response to Fat Pat's allegation is that Armstrong found a loophole in the UCI rules that Pat quotes. Pat says that as a UCI Pro Team member LA was unable to race in national events controlled by USADA, per UCI rules. Lance raced Gila with Mellow Johnny's, to bypass that rule. Bad move on Pat's part to base everything on the fact that Lance only participated in international events, therefore removing USADA jurisdiction, when that is FALSE.

Good spot - I remember that now, as well as the rules UCI broke to let LA race TDU early.

 

[QuickStepper]

Well when you ask to loaded (and irrelevant ) questions - then you are trying to get me to say something I did not.

I didn't mean to ask "loaded" questions (whatever "loaded" means in this context). And I don't think the questions I posed are irrelevant either. They are central to the position that UCI has taken with regard to the supposed "authority" that UCI says it granted to USA Cycling, and in turn which USAC granted to USADA. At least that's how I read Hess' and McQuaid's letters of August 17 and 16, respectively.

I don't know what the answer to the questions is/are, and that's why I asked. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying, that's all. If you've taken offense at my paraphrasing or believe these questions don't accurately reflect any position you've espoused, I apologize.

 

[MarkvW]

All sarcasm aside, am I the only one here who finds it significant from a legal and jurisdictional point of view that USAC has in Stephen Hess' letter dated August 17, taken the position that UCI gets to call the shots as to whether or not there will or won't be any arbitration, and that when it comes to UCI vs. USADA, it is UCI's "interpretation" of the WADA Code and the jurisdictional issues that control, not USADA's?

In the third full paragraph at page one of his letter, Hess writes:

"With respect to that esoteric legal issue (jurisdiction). . . USAC is not only a National Governing Bocy recognized by USOC with obligations in that capacity, but it is also a National Federation recognized by UCI, whom the IOC in turn recognizes as the International Federation that governs cycling. In UCI's capacity as the IOC-recognized International Federation for cycling, USAC believes that UCI has the power to express its interpretation of WADA's Anti-Doping Code, its application to international cycling events, and the Code's jurisdictional provisions in matters within the scope of its authority. Accordingly, to the extent that USADA asserts that it has the capacity to act under UCI authority through USA Cycling, UCI has a diametrically opposite view, and USADA's asssertion that it is acting on behalf of UCI (through USA Cycling) is not consistent with UCI's own interpretation of the meaning and effect of UCI's anti-doping commitments and responsibilities...".

If I were Judge Sparks, this would be one point that would immediately grab my attention. If USADA had argued and conceded (as they are alleged to have done at the last hearing) that its authority to proceed with the arbitration and/or to impose sanctions -- at least as against Armstrong-- is derived because USADA is purporting to act on behalf of USA Cycling (because Armstrong's license was alleged to have been issued by USAC), and USAC is now saying "stop and obey the instructions of UCI", that would be a huge hurdle to get over.

I don't pretend to know the intricacies of the WADA Code or the rules applicable to USA Cycling via UCI, but it seems pretty clear that the pyramid runs IOC--->UCI--->USAC--->USADA in terms of organizational structure and rules implementation. And where, as here, the UCI is saying to USAC "hey, you have no authority to proceed here, and neither does your testing agency, USADA" and USAC agrees with that assessment, what real choice does USADA have?

I know people here are going to claim that I'm favoring one side or the other, but this is only my reaction to the documents that have been filed today thus far. I am waiting eagerly to see what USADA will have to say. I keep checking the docket hourly, but nothing yet from USADA.

You highlighted the right sentence. But USADA's authority to act derives from two threads. One thread stems from the UCI through USAC to USADA. The other stems from USOC through USAC to USADA. In the highlighted language, USAC is telling USADA that they stand behind UCI to the extent that the former thread is implicated. USAC is not implicating the latter thread. That subtlety is very significant. USAC IS doing all it can to help Lance while doing all it can to avoid precipitating a break with the USOC/IOC.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So they are striking "urine sample results from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland were indicative of EPO use"?

Why not actually read the response?

As the undersigned made clear at the hearing,USADA’s charging letter references samples only as potential corroborating evidence; USADA does not even possess documentation of the referenced samples at this time.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103160637/USADA-Motion-to-Dimiss-2

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The USADA letter clearly sets out the fact that Sparks isn't even the person to decide the argument about the UCI's new found position. The jurisdiction needed for Sparks to rule on the issue ISN'T THERE. Jurisdiction is a threshold issue. I quote:

Mr. Herman repeatedly asserted UCI has exclusive jurisdiction based on its own rules andletters; at the same time, he ignored the plain language of USA Cycling’s rules, the USADAProtocol and the USOC National Anti-Doping Policies, which each give USADA jurisdictionand expressly state the USADA Protocol supersedes any contrary rule. Since Mr. Armstrong agreed to be bound by the USADA Protocol, and the USADA Protocol provides that the arbitrators decide all matters relating to their jurisdiction, Mr. Armstrong is required to present his “UCI has jurisdiction” argument to the arbitrators.

EXACTLY. So again, it appears that Armstrong's attorneys have yet to understand that Sparks wants to know how he has the ability to do anything but grant a motion to dismiss. They dropped their only arguments that provide for Sparks to do anything but that when they abandoned their contentions that there is a federal or diversity question.

 

[Race Radio]

Looks like Lance has called upon all of his horses and all of his men:

http://espn.go.com/olympics/cycling/story/_/id/8278550/us-cycling-body-sides-lance-armstrong-usada

The battle happened already. Now we wait.

This is funny. Lance's buddies at the AP are looking for anything positive out of this

"USAC believes that UCI has the power to express its interpretation of WADA's anti-doping code,"

USAC must have forgotten that WADA already said that the UCI "Interpretation" was completely incorrect

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102398382/WADA-Letter-to-UCI

 

[Kennf1]

You highlighted the right sentence. But USADA's authority to act derives from two threads. One thread stems from the UCI through USAC to USADA. The other stems from USOC through USAC to USADA. In the highlighted language, USAC is telling USADA that they stand behind UCI to the extent that the former thread is implicated. USAC is not implicating the latter thread. That subtlety is very significant. USAC IS doing all it can to help Lance while doing all it can to avoid precipitating a break with the USOC/IOC.

They (USAC) are also declining to take any position with respect to Bruyneel, Del Moral, Ferrari, Ferrari, and Marti.

 

[Ney the Viking]

Page 7 of the 17th august USADA letter:

"For the sake of efficiency, and based on the closely-intertwined factual circumstances, USADA
named these individuals in the same notice and charging letters as Mr. Armstrong. Three of the
individuals have requested AAA arbitration proceedings and will submit their jurisdictional
arguments to the arbitrators."

Three others requested arbitration?

 

[Race Radio]

I give up also, because there is no such case. My point.

True, I cannot think of another case where the dopers paid off the UCI and the UCI risked the sport's position in the Olympics to cover it up

 

[goober]

Why not actually read the response?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103160637/USADA-Motion-to-Dimiss-2

Had not read yet - thanks

 

[Race Radio]

So they are striking "urine sample results from the 2001 Tour of Switzerland were indicative of EPO use"?

Nope, don't worry that will be covered.

 

[BroDeal]

USADA has to be pleased as punch over this cascade of new evidence proving complicity and corruption.

Curious if the LA team realizes that they're actually strengthening the arbitration case in USADA's favor.

You guys are so freaking optimistic. The judge does not know the history of UCI and USA Cycling corruption. The only thing he sees is cycling's governing bodies saying the USADA has gone rogue and cycling can handle this situation itself. The best thing about this might be that the situation is so convoluted that the judge might throw up his hands and say that he and hte federal courts want nothing to do with this mess; let CAS sort it out.

Wouldn't be surprised if Travis adds the UCI and USAC to the web - if he needed evidence to do so, he now has it.

That has been in the back of my mind. It would be hilarious to add McQuaid and Verbruggen to the conspiracy.

Over the last week the USADA should have been talking with WADA, and WADA should have been talking to the IOC. The IOC has the power to tell the UCI to stop or else there won't be any cycling in the Olympics. That would be the end of McQuaid.

 

[goober]

True, I cannot think of another case where the dopers paid off the UCI and the UCI risked the sport's position in the Olympics to cover it up

So then you concede that your earlier statement was wrong. All you had to say was you were wrong and not fluff it with your anti-lance rhetoric.

 

[caryopsis]

[snip]...
Three others requested arbitration?

Yes - Bruyneel and Celaya, and Marti (after the sanctions were handed down and he changed his mind).