USADA - Armstrong

[python]

all wada code versions contained provisions for 'non-analytical positive'.

that there are several versions of the code is a perfect subject for an arbitration to sort out, not a federal judge.

usada's response to armstrong contractual claims is steven's act and an ongoing doping rather one single case act in the past.

i am not qualified to to fully understand all legal arguments but if the the sports law rules survived so many challenges, why should they not now ?

 

[D-Queued]

From a Slowb!tch thread. Way to treat the fans still clueless enough to believe him. He must not be sleeping very well.

I did the LSC 100 miler today in Philly. Lance said a few words at the beginning. He started by saying he pounded a few the night before and while he had planned to ride 100 miles that was not going to be the case....

Two thoughts:

-not the smartest thing to say to 2100 riders, many who had come out to ride with him....

-for any of you out there still hoping he can somehow finagle his way into Kona--I would say that he was not acting like the guy who still thinks tht can happen....

And a subsequent post about whether Armstrong was planning to ride:

I think he might have as he was dressed in his kit and had a helmet on. My reaction was more to his comments. I was standing next to a father and young (say 14 years old) son when he talked about his exploits and the son was a bit incredulous when he asked his Dad if Lance wasn't riding because he was drunk....

I wouldn't read too much into this.

Lance is an idiot. He is a 'me-person' who is anything but sensitive to those around him - including during LAF fund-raisers, where you would expect him to be the most crowd sensitive.

This is more like some folks in the crowd finally opening their eyes and seeing what a fundamentally insincere person (i.e. 'jerk') he is.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

I've a question, and be gentle with me here, I "pounded" a few last night so my brain cells aren't quite lined up...

If the UCI signed up to the WADA code in 2004, can any potential USADA sanction pre-date that? I'm stuck in a 'contract agreement' argument that would suggest that different 'terms and conditions' would have applied at that time.

Where does the expression "pounded it" come from? I've not heard it before.

Does Dr. Ferrari have a cure for hangovers?

 

[D-Queued]

Where does the expression "pounded it" come from? I've not heard it before.

Does Dr. Ferrari have a cure for hangovers?

Check out Urban Dictionary for an extensive/exhaustive set of the applications of 'pounding'.

Many are related to heavy drinking, but there is a lot of arguably more colorful options.

Dave.

 

[the big ring]

Where does the expression "pounded it" come from? I've not heard it before.

Does Dr. Ferrari have a cure for hangovers?

Pounded has a more copulatory meaning where I'm from - had to read it three times to work out how it went from that (and being tired the next day) - to the son's question of Lance not riding because he was drunk.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I have heard it since I was a teenager . Maybe it's an American slang that teens used to use..."pound a few down" in regards to " getting hammered".
.. I.e. too much to drink.

 

[python]

3 factors make me think that judge sparks should announce his verdict later today or tuesday, the 22d the latest...

- usada extension for armstrong expires on the 23d
- judge himself said he wont take long after the refiling
- the very last minute decision would deem professionally inappropriate b/c it denies both sides room for digesting the verdict.

i say, bring it today, judge, and let the clinic explosion.

 

[Race Radio]

Johan is losing it. When he says things like this

"But can they punish you?"

"I have a license with my federation, a Belgian (license), and it is a UCI license. All they can do and have done is ruin my reputation, but in my career I have received knocks from all sides and this one from the USADA is like a soft stick.

He must have not heard Pat McQuaid say this

The United States Anti-Doping Agency “has the right to sanction Johan Bruyneel worldwide,” UCI president Pat McQuaid has acknowledged.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-has-right-to-ban-bruyneel-worldwide-mcquaid-says

 

[Stingray34]

The one having a real problem with reality is Pat with his 180-degree flip flops.

I say we rename him Frank Drebbin on this forum.

 

[thehog]

3 factors make me think that judge sparks should announce his verdict later today or tuesday, the 22d the latest...

- usada extension for armstrong expires on the 23d
- judge himself said he wont take long after the refiling
- the very last minute decision would deem professionally inappropriate b/c it denies both sides room for digesting the verdict.

i say, bring it today, judge, and let the clinic explosion.

Has to be Tuesday!

 

[MarkvW]

Johan is losing it. When he says things like this



He must have not heard Pat McQuaid say this



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-has-right-to-ban-bruyneel-worldwide-mcquaid-says

Oh, come on . . . Do you think that statement expresses McQuaid's current position? And you're the one going on all the time about "obfuscation."

 

[Merckx index]

I've a question, and be gentle with me here, I "pounded" a few last night so my brain cells aren't quite lined up...

If the UCI signed up to the WADA code in 2004, can any potential USADA sanction pre-date that? I'm stuck in a 'contract agreement' argument that would suggest that different 'terms and conditions' would have applied at that time.

As the analysis cited by Python notes, this is probably the tougher of the two approaches LA is using--tougher for USADA to get around. The problem of how USADA sanctions a rider for acts occurring before UCI signed on to USADA--indeed, in some cases, before USADA existed--has been discussed here before. The analyst seems to think arguing through the Stevens Act is very tenuous, but does not explain why. The other argument, that the violations were part of ongoing behavior extending all the way to 2012, may also be problematic.

But here's the thing the analyst seemed to overlook. IF some of LA's violations occurred when UCI was signed on to WADA/USADA--and one of the UCI licenses attached to Pat's recent letter to Bock specifically stated this--then USADA ought to be able to make the argument that LA can be sanctioned at least for recent activity. Then it is up to the arbitration panel to determine if the argument can be extended further back in time. IOW, the fact that USADA had jurisdiction in some years ought to be enough to open the door to the regular procedure, with the understanding that the panel--not some federal court--will rule on the validity of the arguments extending the violations back in time. Same should apply to the SOL argument. USADA is on shaky ground here, too, but the point is it should be up to the panel to decide that, not a federal court.

IMO, USADA holds the tiebreaker wrt Sparks' opinion. If he finds the arguments on both sides close and hard to decide on one way or another, I would think he would prefer to let the normal procedures sort it out, rather than some court. I think he will only rule in favor of LA if he finds LA/UCI arguments about jurisdiction a slam dunk. In that case, it would be proper for a court to intervene and tell USADA they had clearly overstepped the rules as clearly written in the codes. But I don't see a UCI slam dunk here.

I agree that he will almost certainly rule today, especially if against LA, as he has to give LA time to make his next move (though I'm sure he has already planned what he will do in that event).OTOH, we know Sparks has a sense of humor, so he might delay the announcement till Tuesday.

 

[Ferminal]

I would say that McQuaid's position is irrelevant.

 

[Race Radio]

Oh, come on . . . Do you think that statement expresses McQuaid's current position? And you're the one going on all the time about "obfuscation."

I am sure you have read McQuaids various rambling letters. Please point out where he talks about Brunyeel. While he directly refers to Armstrong, and his tests, multiple times I see no reference to a change in the position on the staff. Beyond copying him on the letters his name is left out of the discussion.

Regardless even a drunk old fool can see that USADA can, and will, ban Johan and that ban will be applicable world wide

 

[zigmeister]

Johan is losing it. When he says things like this



He must have not heard Pat McQuaid say this



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-has-right-to-ban-bruyneel-worldwide-mcquaid-says

Sure, I can "sanction" anybody also. Lance, you are now sanctioned!! See? I just sanctioned him worldwide. What does that mean? Nothing, just like USADA who has no jurisidiction to take away victories from UCI events like TDF and winners of such events.

They have no authority to take away any victories down under UCI premise overseas. The USADA is a nothing private non-profit organization that tries to stick it nose into things where it has no authority.

Sparks is probably going to rule they have jurisdiction under US based laws and events. The scope might be able to continue, but under a much narrower geographic based.

Also, USADA has made this ridiculous generalization about systematic doping over many years...which is so vague and applies to what exactly?

 

[Stingray34]

Sure, I can "sanction" anybody also. Lance, you are now sanctioned!! See? I just sanctioned him worldwide. What does that mean? Nothing, just like USADA who has no jurisidiction to take away victories from UCI events like TDF and winners of such events.

They have no authority to take away any victories down under UCI premise overseas. The USADA is a nothing private non-profit organization that tries to stick it nose into things where it has no authority.

Sparks is probably going to rule they have jurisdiction under US based laws and events. The scope might be able to continue, but under a much narrower geographic based.

Also, USADA has made this ridiculous generalization about systematic doping over many years...which is so vague and applies to what exactly?

You're wrong.

USADA is a nothing, non-profit state actor organisation.

Remember?

 

[Topangarider]

I am sure you have read McQuaids various rambling letters. Please point out where he talks about Brunyeel. While he directly refers to Armstrong, and his tests, multiple times I see no reference to a change in the position on the staff. Beyond copying him on the letters his name is left out of the discussion.

Regardless even a drunk old fool can see that USADA can, and will, ban Johan and that ban will be applicable world wide

Pat is making up stuff as he goes along. He hasn't commented on JB b/c he hasn't been forced to yet. Not sure why you think he wouldn't be fine with not enforcing any sanction vs. JB. I am not saying that USADA cannot and will not ban JB, just saying that Pat/UCI may ignore them or at least muddy the waters and delay any action. No?

 

[dbrower]

I agree with some of what you say, but IOC is not anti-doping they are however anti-doping scandal.

Bravo. Now we've gotten it.

The IOC is also against any scandal that threatens to run uphill.

-dB

 

[BotanyBay]

3 factors make me think that judge sparks should announce his verdict later today or tuesday, the 22d the latest...

- usada extension for armstrong expires on the 23d
- judge himself said he wont take long after the refiling
- the very last minute decision would deem professionally inappropriate b/c it denies both sides room for digesting the verdict.

i say, bring it today, judge, and let the clinic explosion.

I think anyone can see that Armstrong (at the very least) bought himself some time in regards to that USADA extension. The judge did not dismiss his new filing and is in the consideration stage. Federal judges can (and routinely do) take as much time as they like. That USADA extension deadline means literally nothing to him, and if USADA were to try and enforce it now before his decision comes back, they'd seriously jeopardize their case.

 

[Deagol]

Sure, I can "sanction" anybody also. Lance, you are now sanctioned!! See? I just sanctioned him worldwide. What does that mean? Nothing, just like USADA who has no jurisidiction to take away victories from UCI events like TDF and winners of such events.

.......

Also, USADA has made this ridiculous generalization about systematic doping over many years...which is so vague and applies to what exactly?

The first part of your post is pretty childish.

The last part: the allegations are being kept under wraps intentionally to avoid witness intimidation. Not hard to understand if you know the history....

 

[BotanyBay]

Pat is making up stuff as he goes along. He hasn't commented on JB b/c he hasn't been forced to yet. Not sure why you think he wouldn't be fine with not enforcing any sanction vs. JB. I am not saying that USADA cannot and will not ban JB, just saying that Pat/UCI may ignore them or at least muddy the waters and delay any action. No?

It's pretty clear that the defence strategy is to NOT appear unified in any way. That means their own lawyers, no collaboration, etc. They're all going solo. Lance probably has direct financial ties to PMcQ, and has the ability to turn some thumb screws to get him to behave as he needs him to. Pat's only getting involved lately because Armstrong is pulling some puppet strings.

Why WOULD Pat comment on Johan? I can't see it happening.

 

[Race Radio]

Sure, I can "sanction" anybody also. Lance, you are now sanctioned!! See? I just sanctioned him worldwide.

Do you have a signed agreement with Lance giving you authorization to sanction him when he breaks the agreed rules?

USADA does.

 

[Race Radio]

Pat is making up stuff as he goes along. He hasn't commented on JB b/c he hasn't been forced to yet. Not sure why you think he wouldn't be fine with not enforcing any sanction vs. JB. I am not saying that USADA cannot and will not ban JB, just saying that Pat/UCI may ignore them or at least muddy the waters and delay any action. No?

Johan has gone into arbitration with USADA. That is a tacit acknowledgment of that USADA is allowed to sanction him. If Johan thought otherwise he would take his case to CAS

 

[DirtyWorks]

Sure, I can "sanction" anybody also. Lance, you are now sanctioned!! See? I just sanctioned him worldwide. What does that mean? Nothing, just like USADA who has no jurisidiction to take away victories from UCI events like TDF and winners of such events.

The IOC differs with this opinion. I think they strategically said so through the recent tennis enforcement.

They have no authority to take away any victories down under UCI premise overseas. The USADA is a nothing private non-profit organization that tries to stick it nose into things where it has no authority.

You are largely making stuff up at this point. It's clear you are angling for something that is entirely different this time just because it's Wonderboy.

 

[BotanyBay]

Johan has gone into arbitration with USADA. That is a tacit acknowledgment of that USADA is allowed to sanction him. If Johan thought otherwise he would take his case to CAS

Excellent point.

So, I wonder why the UCI (and USAC) did not back any of the previous cyclists who challenged USADA's jurisdiction in doping cases long ago.

Hmm. I wonder...