USADA - Armstrong

[TubularBills]

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

Given that outcome, does the arbitration proceed immediately... i.e. no later than November?

Surely they don't wait for the outcome of the appeal?

Also, has anyone answered the question of whether USADA could take this directly to CAS instead of arbitrating the case twice?

 

[QuickStepper]

We can all see that the contribution to the confusion has not been equal.

It rarely is.

 

[QuickStepper]

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

You are an optimist. What's the over-under for no earlier than Wednesday?

 

[MarkvW]

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

The quickness of an appeal is irrelevant. If there is no stay, USADA's proceedings will continue on (unless USADA gives Armstrong more time, which I doubt).

 

[MarkvW]

Given that outcome, does the arbitration proceed immediately... i.e. no later than November?

Surely they don't wait for the outcome of the appeal?

Also, has anyone answered the question of whether USADA could take this directly to CAS instead of arbitrating the case twice?

Absent a stay, USADA's freedom of action is unconstrained by the courts.

 

[MarkvW]

Don't forget Thom and his USAC Development thugs.

USAC is extremely cautious. They appear to understand the stakes (or their stakes are different from Pat Heinie's stakes).

 

[MarkvW]

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

Darn. I agree with the hog!

Those girls are heroes!

 

[Cavalier]

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

As late as he possibly can to interrupt the proceedings.

 

[Race Radio]

You are an optimist. What's the over-under for no earlier than Wednesday?

Sparks said at the hearing that he would likely be able to give his decision quickly.

Given that Armstrong has to file his intentions with USADA by Friday I would expect Sparks to try to get it sooner rather then later

 

[mewmewmew13]

Sparks said at the hearing that he would likely be able to give his decision quickly.

Agreed, Wednesday is a good over-under date

Thanx for all the great info

 

[Race Radio]

USAC is extremely cautious.

Agreed. Their letter to USADA was comical. It seemed like they were working as hard as possible to not come out and say they supported the UCI. It was more of a "Ahh, I guess I gotta do what Pat says"

They don't want to draw too much attention to themselves.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Darn. I agree with the hog!

Those girls are heroes!

Yea, but if their name was anything but ***** Riot, a lot fewer people would be concerned with them.

 

[JA.Tri]

Assortment

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.



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.

Wow, I have trouble keeping up...

Sorry no knowledge of multi-posting (as 8253 Bro Deal, 8255 Fortynine fourteen, 8266 Velodude, 8205 Race Radio also apply)

To the bold:

UCI have provided a surfeit of evidence suggesting bias. As such which organisation/s have right to investigate/censure?

WADA have indicated that USADA is correct, that's a start. May WADA, IOC ask pointed questions re:

UCI reversal on USADA's right to and then lack of jurisdiction to investigate....etc
UCI supporting sanctioning of other co-accused then reversing
UCI not previously supporting individual athlete in such a manner
UCI vigorously rejecting USADA action rather than being dispassionate/measured?

8275 Quickstepper
raises issue of standard of proof. Beyond reasonable doubt applies to criminal cases. Balance of probability applies to civil matters. My understanding is that "comfortable satisfaction" falls between these two standards...and does appear appropriate to the circumstances.

Re: Appeal

I think Sparkes, J is extracting all relevant info from both parties so to have a full understanding of the disparate views. Thereby giving all a truly fair hearing. My guess he will write an excellent well constructed concise decision...hoping to avoid appeal ... and at least avoid reversal if appealed.

A mistake on the facts will only count if egregious/unlawful and I don't think he will oblige anyway. An appeal, as I understand it, will not be on the facts (given above caveat). A well written/argued decision...regardless of outcome is unlikely to be reversed.

As pointed out above...there are not guilty (and innocent) persons in jail even after appeals...just as there are some guilty persons that have erroneously (in a legal sense) been set free.

As to the issue of bias, consider the Supreme Court. After all if a full bench of the Supreme Court can come to a split 4-3 decision who is to argue that either side was, in reality, wrong.

As someone (sorry to you), above indicated: law can be as much Art (Magic?? me) as Science.

 

[the big ring]

I don't read the letter from US Cycling (Stephen Hess) to USADA (William Bock), dated 17 August, 2012, as being all that supportive to either the UCI or Lance Armstrong.

In the paragraph where US Cycling appears to be telling USADA to back off, the issue is characterized as "that esoteric legal issue". When I read that, it suggests to me that what follows is being stated because Mr. Hess has to state this, but he doesn't have his heart into it.

In the next paragraph, Mr. Hess goes on to state his understanding that the USADA is asserting its jurisdiction can be anchored outside to the UCI's rules, and that US Cycling has no problems with that.

+infinity and beyond.

It sounded far more like what a kid says when his Mum takes him next door to apologise to the kid he swore at in the playground last week than any sort of adult-like "Cease and desist".

 

[Kennf1]

As late as he possibly can to interrupt the proceedings.

No. If he is dismissed, he has to respond to USADA next week, and its process goes forward. No injunction. Armstrong can file a notice of appeal within hours of the the Sparks decision, IF Sparks dismisses it. A notice of appeal to the 5th circuit is a one-page thing. The 5th circuit then tells you when they want briefing. Armstrong would have nothing to delay by delaying under these circumstances.

 

[sniper]

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.

agree with the "should have". But two issues:
1. Does WADA have that type of influence within the IOC? Verbruggen will be pulling the opposite strings.

2. If given the option between cycling being thrown out of the olympics or UCI being exposed by USADA, won't Pat choose the former?

 

[the big ring]

2. If given the option between cycling being thrown out of the olympics or UCI being exposed by USADA, won't Pat choose the former?

We clearly don't have all the details, but an IOC payment to UCI for Olympics as revenue will be on the UCI books as such.

Keeping the GCP money tree growing, and doing closed door deals directly with ASO, teams and / or riders would surely be more lucrative for those in the inner circle, as the transactions are off the books.

At a guess, Pat would prefer to keep both and the second if he was being honest. But most national feds are funded based on Olympic medals, so if the sport gets ditched from IOC, National Feds will probably be slightly perturbed.

Just slightly.

ETA: maybe Hein and Pat can come up with a second option, where track continues at Olympics and road goes somewhere / somehow else?

 

[poupou]

To be out of IOC would be a disaster for most national federations, so UCI will never do something to allow that. Of course, McQuaid and Verdruggen's personnal interest may be opposite of UCI's.

 

[BroDeal]

agree with the "should have". But two issues:
1. Does WADA have that type of influence within the IOC? Verbruggen will be pulling the opposite strings.

2. If given the option between cycling being thrown out of the olympics or UCI being exposed by USADA, won't Pat choose the former?

I don't see how McQuaid could survive cycling being cut out of the Olympics. Every national federation would ask for his head. Take Great Britain for instance. With no possibility of going to the Olympics, fifteen million pounds of funding for cycling would disappear. What percentage of people involved in cycling development in GB would be out of a job? National feds all over the world would be devastated.

I don't think the IOC will do anything, though. This sort of corruption is an expected part of everyone involved in the Olympics. People would be concerned that stepping on the UCI's turf could lead to their own turf being stepped on. It would take something big to get cycling tossed from the Olympics. Hiding something that big may be why the UCI is trying to prevent the Armstrong case from going forward.

 

[Muriel]

Their letter to USADA was comical. It seemed like they were working as hard as possible to not come out and say they supported the UCI. It was more of a "Ahh, I guess I gotta do what Pat says"

That was my take on it too. Only offering an opinion because they'd been asked/told to. I'm surprised it formed part of Armstrong's submission tbh as it doesn't read as putting their full weight behind UCI. Armstrong clutching at straws really.

With regard to the USADA's submission, can someone please flesh out the USADA's explanation for the lack of detail in the charging letter, summarised as...

Thus, even if USADA had provided in its letter witness names and the dates of specific rule violations it would not have changed the fact that the ADRB process is confined to written submissions and therefore not a process in which witness statements could be challenged.

I don't understand their explanation as I don't understand the process with regard to ADRB and the arbitration panel. What the USADA is saying doesn't read to me as a reason to not be more forthcoming with detail.

 

[python]

.....



I don't understand their explanation as I don't understand the process with regard to ADRB and the arbitration panel. What the USADA is saying doesn't read to me as a reason to not be more forthcoming with detail.

i was re-reading the same on page 8 and imagined sparks having more questions...

the way the usada response reads, it appears an answer to a concern never fully reflected in the media reports from the hearing. if i understood the concern,
the judge perhaps questioned the fairness of the usada doping review board process.

 

[neineinei]

Is USOC at good terms again with IOC, or is it still a bit tense between them because of that financial situation that led up to IOC members gleefully voting for Rio 2016 instead of Chicago 2016?

http://politiken.dk/sport/article805162.ece#

Norwegian IOC member Gerhard Heiberg, who is President of the Marketing Commission of IOC, has on several occasions said that cycling can be removed from the Olympics because of all the doping cases, and that they have been discussing it in the IOC. (Can't remember hearing him say the same about athletics... and during the London Olympics he claimed to have cured boxing!)

http://www.nrk.no/sport/sykkel/1.7986856

 

[TrekCyclist22]

USDA, Lance; Where's Chris Carmichael

Where is Chris Carmichael in all of this? He was Lance's coach/trainer during all of this supposed doping? Was he questioned or did he testify? Has he commented on the charges brought against Lance and others?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

1. Don't keep tabs on him.
2. Yes, he was. If you think it was "supposed" you really must have lived under a rock for the last forever.
3. Not that anyone has mentioned.
4. Not that anyone has mentioned.

 

[Kennf1]

I think USADA knows that he was so far removed from most of this that they don't care about him.
I'd rather see the mainstream press pick up the Weisel/USAC connection.