USADA - Armstrong

[QuickStepper]

It is not confusing in the slightest. The rules are clear, which is why McQuaid said for 2 years this was USADA's case. The UCI has never tried to disrupt WADA like this and is only doing so because they know that a big part of USADA's case will be the corruption of the UCI and the culpability of USAC

In their desperation they are trying to confuse the issues as much as possible in the slim hope Sparks will make a mistake.

I was just paraphrasing Python when he wrote what he did about Judge Sparks calling this case a confusing question of sports jurisdiction.

You are talking about something I never mentioned.

 

[BroDeal]

You are generalizing. I am talking about a specific situation. In this specific situation, Sparks' decision, whether driven by computer, emotion, or thumb up his ****, isn't really that important. The Court of Appeals is going to decide the issue anyway--without any deference to Sparks.

So any negative emotion that Sparks may have regarding Lance's lawyers won't make a darn bit of difference in the ultimate outcome.

And as another famous Alabama man once said: "And that's all I have to say about that."

The prisons are full of wrongly convicted men denied appeal after appeal even though their initial trial was a farce.

 

[python]

You are generalizing. I am talking about a specific situation. In this specific situation, Sparks' decision, whether driven by computer, emotion, or thumb up his ****, isn't really that important. The Court of Appeals is going to decide the issue anyway--without any deference to Sparks.

So any negative emotion that Sparks may have regarding Lance's lawyers won't make a darn bit of difference in the ultimate outcome.

And as another famous Alabama man once said: "And that's all I have to say about that."

it's you who TRIED to generalize (and hide) behind an abstract law completely denying what i keep bringing up - a subjective element of any decision including an appeal court.

i am not accusing judges of impropriety or lack of professionalism - i am only highlighting that they are (like you and me !) subject to human nature where abuse of court has been shown multiple times IN REAL WORLD to affect the eventual judgement.

if judge sparks gets moved by a wrong (or right) impulse while bringing solid legal reasons, it does not make the court of appeals decision an ideal or the only legally appropriate decision.

it is still A decision by humans subject to their environment.

 

[AussieGoddess]

well the first thing I noticed in LA's final submission was the incorrect date in the first paragraph

This case is not like others in which USADA has required arbitration of doping charges.USADA does not have authority under the governing rules to bring the charges it has asserted here.USADA’s own admissions during the August 10, 2010 hearing (“hearing”) conclusively demonstratethat the UCI rules govern, the USADA Protocol has no application here, and UCI has exclusiveauthority in this matter.

would that not be .... umm... this case, so perhaps 10 August 2012 ????

I did have to laugh also at the 'retired cyclist' argument, though overall I though his submission was somewhat better than his previous filings.

Once again I was impressed by the summary of USADA though. It did not so much explain why USADA has jurisdiction over UCI, but why this court did NOT have jurisdiction, and that the UCI v USADA argument is decided by the arbitrator.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You and Chewbacca crack me up. Just because I haven't come out and said Armstrong is a piece of **** who deserves to be pilloried, or that he's rich and therefore doesn't deserve "justice" (oh, really, do only the poor and downtrodden deserve a fair trial?), I'm an "apologist" ?

You make me laugh. Really, just hilarious.

Always happy to cause someone to laugh. You're welcome.

Anyway, I guess you can't read very well. I never said Cancer Jesus doesn't deserve a fair trial. He will certainly get one once he quits trying to keep the evidence against him from ever being heard. Because unless you are a moron, you have to know that his suit is only about that. I just said he has the money to subvert justice. The reality is that your best shot to do so is to have the money to muck up the process. Surely that cannot be news to you.

As for you being an apologist, that is equally as obvious. You just aren't honest enough to admit it. Again with the duck thing.

 

[thehog]

Forget Lance. Free ***** Riot!!

 

[mewmewmew13]

What the heck??? Can't the legal team afford good software or someone who might proofread their docs?? How many wordsare constantly runtogether or bad construction.Read like no spacing afterpunctuation??

 

[QuickStepper]

Always happy to cause someone to laugh. You're welcome.

As for you being an apologist, that is equally as obvious. You just aren't honest enough to admit it. Again with the duck thing.

And again, I have zero concern what you choose to believe about me.

So as before, have a nice day.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I was just paraphrasing Python when he wrote what he did about Judge Sparks calling this case a confusing question of sports jurisdiction.

You are talking about something I never mentioned.

No, your argument revolved around how all of the excrement produced by Armstrong's attorneys regarding whether the UCI or USADA has the right to hold the arbitration would make answering the question of SMJ difficult. (the post is there for everyone to see). That was really off the mark, and surely you realize that information has nothing to do with SMJ.

You now seem to be saying that the question of jurisdiction is based on law, and that this is not a hard call? Switching mid-stream? Certainly, the case law on the issue is pretty easy to follow. Sure the judge can try to do something new, but again, that would be unlikely. But anything can happen...

 

[Race Radio]

I was just paraphrasing Python when he wrote what he did about Judge Sparks calling this case a confusing question of sports jurisdiction.

You are talking about something I never mentioned.

Did you read your own post? You said you agreed it was a confusing question of sports jurisdiction.....it isn't

The confusion was intentionally inject by Armstrong in his attempt to avoid justice. If he was not involved the UCI does not try to disrupt and we do not have chaos

 

[QuickStepper]

No, your argument revolved around how all of the excrement produced by Armstrong's attorneys regarding whether the UCI or USADA has the right to hold the arbitration would make answering the question of SMJ difficult. (the post is there for everyone to see). That was really off the mark, and surely you realize that information has nothing to do with SMJ.

You now seem to be saying that the question of jurisdiction is based on law, and that this is not a hard call? Switching mid-stream? Certainly, the case law on the issue is pretty easy to follow. Sure the judge can try to do something new, but again, that would be unlikely. But anything can happen...

I'm sorry, were you talking to me?

I'm busy now. Can I ignore you later?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

And again, I have zero concern what you choose to believe about me.

So as before, have a nice day.

I'm just happy you quit the obfuscatory bull**** that the filing today by Armstrong attorneys had anything to do with SMJ. How embarrassing for you to have made such a rookie mistake.

 

[QuickStepper]

Did you read your own post? You said you agreed it was a confusing question of sports jurisdiction.....it isn't

The confusion was intentionally inject by Armstrong in his attempt to avoid justice. If he was not involved the UCI does not try to disrupt and we do not have chaos

Chaos? Is chaos not a "confusing" situation? Get out the thesaurus. Yes, I read my own post. I agreed with Python that the facts have been confused and that Judge Sparks had questioned the parties at the last hearing about the confusing state of affairs that have been presented.

I didn't say he was confused or that his decision would be unclear or confusing once he renders it, whichever way he decides. I also said that I agreed with MarkvW that this is as close as one can get to being decided as a pure question of law.

If you don't know the difference between the two then I just can't help further explain it.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm sorry, were you talking to me?

I'm busy now. Can I ignore you later?

You are in-tune enough with the workings of intertube forums to realize that pretending to ignore someone by posting about ignoring them is just bad form? I'm sure there is a lot you could teach me about the law if your eyes weren't so blinded by hero worship, but you don't want to play this internet tit for tat game with me. I say just walk away now.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I am sensing an impending resonance disaster.....

 

[QuickStepper]

You are generalizing. I am talking about a specific situation. In this specific situation, Sparks' decision, whether driven by computer, emotion, or thumb up his ****, isn't really that important. The Court of Appeals is going to decide the issue anyway--without any deference to Sparks.

So any negative emotion that Sparks may have regarding Lance's lawyers won't make a darn bit of difference in the ultimate outcome.

And as another famous Alabama man once said: "And that's all I have to say about that."

Mark actually raises a very good point about judicial review in this instance. Since the question will likely be considered an issue of law on appeal, the Court of Appeal will not be bound by whatever factual determinations are made by Judge Sparks at the trial court level and will be free to reach entirely different conclusions based on the same state of the evidence.

But as someone else said, the jails are full of innocent people, and there's no guarantee that if Sparks is wrong, the court of appeal won't repeat the same error.

 

[Berzin]

Is this ruling going to take all night?

 

[BotanyBay]

What the heck??? Can't the legal team afford good software or someone who might proofread their docs?? How many wordsare constantly runtogether or bad construction.Read like no spacing afterpunctuation??

It's called prayer... "The last refuge of a scoundrel."

 

[benzwire]

Is this ruling going to take all night?

Come on, make a decision already!

 

[BotanyBay]

In their desperation they are trying to confuse the issues as much as possible in the slim hope Sparks will make a mistake.

That's exactly what's going on. Hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people are currently debating the issues that UCI and USAC have recently raised. To quote you again... "Toilet Clogging"... That's Lance's best game right now. That's the best he can bring.

Use the force, Luke. Turn that targeting computer off. A few of us know to relax and let it play out.

When you know you're going to win, you just know.

 

[Race Radio]

Chaos? Is chaos not a "confusing" situation? Get out the thesaurus. Yes, I read my own post. I agreed with Python that the facts have been confused and that Judge Sparks had questioned the parties at the last hearing about the confusing state of affairs that have been presented.

I didn't say he was confused or that his decision would be unclear or confusing once he renders it, whichever way he decides. I also said that I agreed with MarkvW that this is as close as one can get to being decided as a pure question of law.

If you don't know the difference between the two then I just can't help further explain it.

Ahh, I see. When all else fails pull the grammar card.

We can all see that the contribution to the confusion has not been equal. USADA is not the source of confusion.

USADA did not get publicly ridiculed by the judge for their absurd filings, Lance did. USADA did not miss deadlines, and make up silly excuses about the Olympics. USADA is asking that the rules that have been used for a decade to apply.....Lance thinks he is special. the rules do not apply to him.

In addition to Armstrong's paid liars the UCI has done their best to pollute the well. After saying for 2 years this was USADA's case the UCI suddenly changed their mind, ignored a decade of precedent, and dumped some craptastic letters that appears to be written by a drunk 9 year old.

It is unfortunate that the transcripts of the hearing will not be available for a while as the only media there was part of Armstrong's team. The judge asked USADA once for clarification about the charging letter. His confusion about the charging letter was largely thanks to Armstrong' intentionally misleading statements about USADA's process. Herman begging the judge “make USADA follow its rules,”

The Protocol simply requires USADA to “providenotice of such potential [anti-doping rule] violation to the Athlete or Other Person, the USOC,the applicable NGB, IF and WADA.”The June 12, 2012 notice letter did so.

The rules are clear, Armstrong tried to confuse this fact.

the judge otherwise hammered Armstrong's legal over and over about their inconstant statements. He even thanked USADA's legal for their honesty....a compliment he did not extend to Herman as he parroted the talking points to little effect

The source of the confusion is clear, Lance, Hein and Pat......and it is intentional

 

[BotanyBay]

and dumped some craptastic letters that appears to be written by a drunk 9 year old.

Please excuse Pat. His first language is not English. It's British (with an Irish brogue).

 

[BotanyBay]

The source of the confusion is clear, Lance, Hein and Pat......and it is intentional

Don't forget Thom and his USAC Development thugs.

 

[Race Radio]

I wouldn't expect anything til Monday. The real question is how quickly will Armstrong appeal?

 

[Oldman]

It's called prayer... "The last refuge of a scoundrel."

Or, in the case of the unrepentant in order:
1. Patriotism-wrap a flag around your jaundiced a*s
2. Religion-"I've seen the light!"