USADA - Armstrong

[MarkvW]

Among the Court's concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after his alleged doping violations occurred, and intends to consolidate his case with those of several other alleged offenders, including--incredibly--several over whom USA Cycling and USOC apparently have no authority whatsoever. Further, if Armstrong's allegations are true, and USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC.

 

[thehog]

Well said -but I can't help wonder if all this will result in a shootout at high noon between the UCI and Usada?

Nah. The UCI's heart wasn't in it... They were just placating Lance.

 

[thehog]

Among the Court's concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after his alleged doping violations occurred, and intends to consolidate his case with those of several other alleged offenders, including--incredibly--several over whom USA Cycling and USOC apparently have no authority whatsoever. Further, if Armstrong's allegations are true, and USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC.

He comes circular Mark again. Take it to the legal thread you set up. Seriously. I think you like the sound of your own voice.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

If Armstrong chooses not to participate, then we might never know what the evidence against him was, at least not definitively. .

Anyway, onward and upward and let's see what happens next.

Others named by USADA might choose public hearings which will out Armstrong's information just as much if he agreed to a public hearing.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Others named by USADA might choose public hearings which will out Armstrong's information just as much if he agreed to a public hearing.

Mr. Fan, please meet Mr. Shlt.......Mr. Shlt, please meet Mr> fan........

 

[Catwhoorg]

Others named by USADA might choose public hearings which will out Armstrong's information just as much if he agreed to a public hearing.

I was just thinking that as I was reading through the last discussion.

 

[QuickStepper]

USADA said in their statement:
“[snip]we look forward to a timely, public arbitration hearing in this case, should Mr. Armstrong choose, where the evidence can be presented, witness testimony will be given under oath and subject to cross examination[snip]”

If the arbitration hearing is non-public, the testimony is still under oath though, right?

Yes, even if Armstrong chooses to keep the proceedings in arbitration confidential, any oral testimony given by any witness or by a party is "under oath".

 

[QuickStepper]

Others named by USADA might choose public hearings which will out Armstrong's information just as much if he agreed to a public hearing.

That's a very interesting question, and it is probably a very good reason why USADA probably doesn't have the authority either under the USADA Protocol or WADA Code to bring a consolidated case as it has.

But again, those are issues that Judge Sparks either determined that he had no jurisdiction at this point to hear, were premature, or which he exercised his equitable discretion to decline to hear in the context of the federal court litigation brought by Armstrong.

What the real answer to the question you pose turns out to be, no one knows yet.

Let's just assume though for the sake of simplicity that Bruyneel and Marti are sufficiently aligned with Armstrong that they will take their lead based on whatever it is he decides to do. Del Moral is the wild card, IMHO. If he elects "public" and the rest elect "private" I have no idea how this gets reconciled, and someone is going to be claiming a violation of their rights.

Why USADA didn't simply choose to go after each of these guys in five separate proceedings is something I think it will later regret. But that's just my take on it.

 

[ElChingon]

Well it seems its coming down to the 23rd, but its really half the equation. Will Lance break the omerta of the conspiracy and list out who helped/supported/financed it? To get off on a lesser charge or is that out of the equation? Will he take it to the limit and ruin those who already testified and list out their wrong doings in detail to put them in the same bad light.

I think a few hands can still be played on this, time will tell.

 

[QuickStepper]

USADA said in their statement:
“[snip]we look forward to a timely, public arbitration hearing in this case, should Mr. Armstrong choose, where the evidence can be presented, witness testimony will be given under oath and subject to cross examination[snip]”

If the arbitration hearing is non-public, the testimony is still under oath though, right?

One more thing about that little snipped quote from the press release by USADA:

I'm actually sort of surprised that they would say "where the . . . witness testimony will be . . . . subject to cross examination."

Why is that surprising? Because under the USADA Protocols and the WADA Code, there is no right to actually cross-examine witness testimony if that testimony is given in the form of a written statement (a declaration under penalty of perjury) without the witness being present at the arbitration proceeding. I view this statement as very encouraging because it seems to suggest that USADA got the message Judge Sparks was sending and that they heard him loud and clear, and as such, they are going to conduct the hearings in a manner which would satisfy any judge in any court in the U.S. that the defendant/accused's rights to confront witnesses (i.e., his accusers) and thus his "due process" rights, will be protected and not violated.

 

[MarkvW]

Among the Court's concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after his alleged doping violations occurred, and intends to consolidate his case with those of several other alleged offenders, including--incredibly--several over whom USA Cycling and USOC apparently have no authority whatsoever. Further, if Armstrong's allegations are true, and USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC.

You think that is the sound of my own voice, Hoggy?

 

[mewmewmew13]

i am getting better then the hog at predicting anything about to happen before tuesday.

greatly satisfied by the judge's wisdom...MI, as i posited earlier, if armstrong files appeal in the next day or 2, usada is likely to extend the dead line again. but i am far from certain they will.

Yes, python ! You deserve kudos for your prediction earlier today!!

I'm excited!, dismissed!

Gotta catch up on details....is there a short summary that I should see here in the clinic??

 

[BroDeal]

Is the EPO vial half-full or half-empty?

I think Vroome stole half the EPO.

 

[DirtyWorks]

5. ... It also raises a number of other questions, including where such a lawsuit would/should be filed (i.e., in the U.S., where USADA is based, or in Europe where UCI is based), and whether the dispute between the various governing bodies and agencies is even subject to being adjudicated judicially, or like the rest of this mess, would be subject to mandatory and binding arbitration (e.g., before the CAS) between the various governing bodies.

#1. The UCI via USAC can claim they have the authority to arbitrate the accusations made without samples. I don't think that entirely invalidates the USADA arbitration. I could be wrong though. Let's hope USADA has plenty of samples!!!

#2 Location to forbid the USADA from further processing for claims backed by no samples would be done in the U.S. Otherwise it sets up a precedent where the UCI's rule-making authority overrides the local sovereign authority. From there, USAC would, in theory, be the appropriate authority where it will all go away as Tailwind owns USAC. They could sweep it away to Switzerland too if Pat so desires.

The article in question, 10(i) is a glorious example of exactly how much theater anti-doping actually is. WADA remains almost powerless by design.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Let's just assume though for the sake of simplicity that Bruyneel and Marti are sufficiently aligned with Armstrong that they will take their lead based on whatever it is he decides to do. Del Moral is the wild card, IMHO. If he elects "public" and the rest elect "private" I have no idea how this gets reconciled, and someone is going to be claiming a violation of their rights.

Why USADA didn't simply choose to go after each of these guys in five separate proceedings is something I think it will later regret. But that's just my take on it.

What about George, JV et al. (the 10+ riders)
They will have their own cases to answer, and they could easily request that their confessions/hearings be made public.

 

[mastersracer]

What about George, JV et al. (the 10+ riders)
They will have their own cases to answer, and they could easily request that their confessions/hearings be made public.

what indication is there that any of them would elect to arbitrate their cases?

 

[Mr.DNA]

"Fresh blow..."

Digging this headline:
Fresh blow for Armstrong

What about the hookers???

 

[mewmewmew13]

Armstrong through his Juan Pelota account tweeted to RR to check out 10(i) of UCI Anti-Doping Rules:

Here is 10:

Thanks Mas...this is sweet

 

[Merckx index]

Let's just assume though for the sake of simplicity that Bruyneel and Marti are sufficiently aligned with Armstrong that they will take their lead based on whatever it is he decides to do. Del Moral is the wild card, IMHO. If he elects "public" and the rest elect "private" I have no idea how this gets reconciled, and someone is going to be claiming a violation of their rights.

Why USADA didn't simply choose to go after each of these guys in five separate proceedings is something I think it will later regret. But that's just my take on it.

This is an interesting point, but if Del Moral alone would opt for public, I don’t see how this affects the rights of others. If what Del Moral did or is charged with doing involves any of the others, as it presumably does, they have no right to complain if Del Moral airs this dirty laundry in public. Their right to keep evidence against themselves private surely does not trump his right to do whatever he feels gives him the best chance to defend himself against the charges. Even if, hypothetically, one of the remaining five were actually innocent of the charges, just by associating with someone who engaged in shady behavior he runs the risk of having affairs he would prefer to be private made public.

As far as charging all six consolidated, rather than separately, I think USADA felt the nature of the case demanded that. None of these guys acted in isolation, in the sense that some rider testing positive, for example, might have chosen on his own to take a drug, and if he was aided in doing so, solicited on his own the help of some doctor or trainer. The whole point of the conspiracy as I understand it is that the actions of each of the six aided, abetted and reinforced the actions of the others. I don’t think one can appreciate what any one of the defendants did in isolation of what the others did.

In fact, maybe all doping, at least in cycling, involves networks/conspiracies of this kind, and maybe there is no such as a single guilty rider. I’m sensitive to that view. But if that’s the case, what USADA is doing could be seen as the wave of the future, the right way to go after dopers.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Do they have to even arbitrate to make their confessions public ?


Some (most of the?) information will get out no matter if LA and his co-defendants opt for a private arbitration.

 

[COMO CYCO]

Two questions:

1) Do we know if the witness testimony is in written form only for each of the 10, or if any (all) will actually take the stand and give oral statements?

2) Playing devil's advocate (innuendo intended), I could see where it might be a strategy on LA's part to suggest that the arbitration be made public if witness testimony is the bulk or entirety of the evidence against him AND the witnesses will be presenting their statements orally for the following reason. It's clear that none of the 10 (other than Floyd and Tyler) are comfortable speaking out against Lance openly in a public format. Even JV's recent confession omitted details. What if he called their bluffs and said, "If you want to testify against me - do it openly in public where everyone can hear you." Would Hincapie or Leipheimer still go through with it?

 

[Maxiton]

Digging this headline:
Fresh blow for Armstrong

What about the hookers???

Hilarious! Chapeau to you, sir!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Digging this headline:
Fresh blow for Armstrong

What about the hookers???

I'm disappointed that there has not been a headline like:
Judge Sparks Armstrong implosion.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Digging this headline:
Fresh blow for Armstrong

What about the hookers???

Omg
Can not believe this is real.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm disappointed that there has not been a headline like:
Judge Sparks Armstrong implosion.

How about
Sparks causes Clinic explosion