USADA - Armstrong

[WinterRider]

I'm a bit surprised there isn't more jubilation here. I'm having a good jubilate

I particularly liked this bit:

I didn't read the whole thing, but I did notice that part and agree it's a great quote!

 

[BroDeal]

What about George, JV et al. (the 10+ riders)

I think Armstrong may pin his hopes on a combination of being able to destroy a number of witnesses during cross examination, like Landis and Hamilton, and a good number of the other witnesses, like Hincapie and Leipheimer, being unwilling witnesses who may resist condemning him.

Witnesses like Hincapie and Leipheimer were sucked into this because of the federal investigation. They and their lawyers were playing it smart by arranging a deal with the USADA, figuring that everything would come out anyway when the feds tried Armstrong so they might as well get the best deal they could for sporting matters as well as criminal. When the investigation was shut down, the reason for cooperating disappeared. They are damned by interviews they did with the USADA but are very unhappy about providing evidence against friends. The situation is made worse because they were probably counting on their their testimony being in the form of an affidavit rather than testimony with cross examination and Armstrong glaring at them.

I think it is likely that some of the witnesses will do their best to minimize what they know about Armstrong. It will be easy to put the blame on the doctors, Marti, and Bruyneel.

Who is to say that JV won't pull his usual Sgt. Schultz act as far as Armstrong is concerned?

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYxvVe9y5NQ

 

[Benotti69]

I think Armstrong may pin his hopes on a combination of being able to destroy a number of witnesses during cross examination, like Landis and Hamilton, and a good number of the other witnesses, like Hincapie and Leipheimer, being unwilling witnesses who may resist condemning him.

Witnesses like Hincapie and Leipheimer were sucked into this because of the federal investigation. They and their lawyers were playing it smart by arranging a deal with the USADA, figuring that everything would come out anyway when the feds tried Armstrong so they might as well get the best deal they could for sporting matters as well as criminal. When the investigation was shut down, the reason for cooperating disappeared. They are damned by interviews they did with the USADA but are very unhappy about providing evidence against friends. The situation is made worse because they were probably counting on their their testimony being in the form of an affidavit rather than testimony with cross examination and Armstrong glaring at them.

I think it is likely that some of the witnesses will do their best to minimize what they know about Armstrong. It will be easy to put the blame on the doctors, Marti, and Bruyneel.

Who is to say that JV won't pull his usual Sgt. Schultz act as far as Armstrong is concerned?

I cant see Hincapie and Leipheimer being advised to minimize anything in their already taken testimonies. The Fed case could reopen and this thing get cranked up another gear.

Smart thing for all witnesses would be to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I cant see Hincapie and Leipheimer being advised to minimize anything in their already taken testimonies. The Fed case could reopen and this thing get cranked up another gear.

Smart thing for all witnesses would be to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Exactly this BD.
I would guess there are things that they could not possibly retract. For them to change their tune or withhold at this point would be incredibly bad judgement.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

Which is why I was sitting back being amused at the glowing treatment you gave Armstrong's arguments for SMJ. I was also as amused at your suggestion that the fight between the UCI and USADA had something to do with federal jurisdiction.

As I said all along, this was a pretty easy call if you looked at the body of law on arbitration. This morning, before I just found out about the ruling, I was thinking that there is no way Sparks could find that Armstrong had raised a legitimate issue as a ruling like that (if sustained, which there is no way it would) would have opened the court's door to all types of people looking to get out of arbitration, and the federal courts are not going to do that.

 

[hektoren]

Happy days ahead! Happy, happy days!

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

I think Armstrong may pin his hopes on a combination of being able to destroy a number of witnesses during cross examination, like Landis and Hamilton, and a good number of the other witnesses, like Hincapie and Leipheimer, being unwilling witnesses who may resist condemning him.

I would agree that this is probably the case. But he won't be able to "destroy" Hamilton, or Landis. No way Floyd is going to fold, especially under any cross-examination on a stand. Floyd's been through the ringer and around the block more than Lance at this game. I think a better term for what Lance will try to do is "smear" them.

I think Lance is going to try to say that GH, JV, DZ, LL and the other "credible" witnesses misheard him, and hope they give Andy Pettite-like testimony, saying they could be mistaken and maybe it wasn't really doping. But I have a feeling USADA is prepared for this, and going to get both more cooperation from the witnesses, and prep/pressure them to be honest, and direct.

I also expect him to do everything to bog this down and muddy it up as possible.

Also, there's still a chance that Lance will lose in arbitration 2-1. He could then use that, and his time to try to get the PR machine to spin it saying it's a mistake, and he was ripped off by the government kangaroo court, etc. etc.

I don't imagine it will work, but he may be able to drag it out a very long time.

 

[the big ring]

Is the first time Lance has "lost" a case?

 

[thehog]

I feel less pessimistic. What a relief.

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/S...es_comments_at_Livestrong_Challenge_P4116843/

More slowwitchhunt to keep you going:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/S...es_comments_at_Livestrong_Challenge_P4116843/

 

[dbrower]

I would agree that this is probably the case. But he won't be able to "destroy" Hamilton, or Landis. No way Floyd is going to fold, especially under any cross-examination on a stand. Floyd's been through the ringer and around the block more than Lance at this game. I think a better term for what Lance will try to do is "smear" them.

I don't expect Landis to appear as a witness, unless brought in by the co-respondents. He's sufficiently flawed in credibility on the stand that he'd be as much a liability as an asset to USADA. Using his information as starting points to demonstrate and corroborate with better witnesses, documents and tests is a much better approach.

-dB

 

[MarkvW]

Well, Lance has paid a few hundred thousand and has bought only an extension of the USADA deadline.

I assume Lance will now engage in arbitration. Once you've gone full ***, there's no going back, I guess.

I can't see Lance agreeing to an open arbitration, though--no matter what the negative PR cost is.

 

[BroDeal]

I would agree that this is probably the case. But he won't be able to "destroy" Hamilton, or Landis. No way Floyd is going to fold, especially under any cross-examination on a stand. Floyd's been through the ringer and around the block more than Lance at this game. I think a better term for what Lance will try to do is "smear" them.

Floydstrong: When Livestrong just ain't cutting it and you really need to HTFU.

I think Lance is going to try to say that GH, JV, DZ, LL and the other "credible" witnesses misheard him, and hope they give Andy Pettite-like testimony, saying they could be mistaken and maybe it wasn't really doping.

That is what I am getting at. There is a wide range of possible cooperation. Witnesses can do their best to minimize the harm their testimony will do to a defendent. Memories can become fuzzy. The witness may not be sure about things. During cross, the defendent's lawyer may be angling to get an answer that will help his side. A friendly witness will be willing to give it to him with a cherry on top.

 

[BroDeal]

Well, Lance has paid a few hundred thousand and has bought only an extension of the USADA deadline.

Why is Armstrong wasting taxpayer money on this witch hunt against the USADA in federal courts?

 

[D-Queued]

Is the first time Lance has "lost" a case?

No.

But, the spinboys will soon be telling us that he has won more than 600 of them.

Dave.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Why is Armstrong wasting taxpayer money on this witch hunt against the USADA in federal courts?

Please tweet that in all caps..

 

[D-Queued]

Please tweet that in all caps..

Yes, please.

Dave.

 

[BroDeal]

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/S...es_comments_at_Livestrong_Challenge_P4116843/

More slowwitchhunt to keep you going:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/S...es_comments_at_Livestrong_Challenge_P4116843/

What is funny about Slowtwitch is that they are actually questioning whether being unable to ride after "pounding a few" meant that he was hung over. Of course, Dan Empfield had to reiterate his corrupt policy of preventing anyone from damaging the reputations of individuals, sponsors, and manufacturers that are involved in triathlon unless there is something like a Supreme Court ruling to back up an opinion. Common sense, common knowledge, and common logic is just not good enough. That guy could give McQuaid a run for his money when it comes to covering stuff up.

 

[Benotti69]

Floydstrong: When Livestrong just ain't cutting it and you really need to HTFU.



That is what I am getting at. There is a wide range of possible cooperation. Witnesses can do their best to minimize the harm their testimony will do to a defendent. Memories can become fuzzy. The witness may not be sure about things. During cross, the defendent's lawyer may be angling to get an answer that will help his side. A friendly witness will be willing to give it to him with a cherry on top.

Too many people on the USPSBus on the side of a col doing transfusions to not remember WTF they were doing!

There is more than 10 witnesses. How many need to be not credible? More than 50%?

I bet most if not all really dont like Armstrong. Hell i bet George doesn't. The reason he wouldn't ride with him when he came back. And i kind of guess most of these riders have been in contact at some stage to discuss this.

 

[BotanyBay]

Armstrong's appetite for appeal will be directly proportional to the LACK of his ability to defend against USADA's proceedings.

Which means we can expect an appeal for sure. Which means a delay is coming. So get ready.

 

[mewmewmew13]

What is funny about Slowtwitch is that they are actually questioning whether being unable to ride after "pounding a few" meant that he was hung over. Of course, Dan Empfield had to reiterate his corrupt policy of preventing anyone from damaging the reputations of individuals, sponsors, and manufacturers that are involved in triathlon unless there is something like a Supreme Court ruling to back up an opinion. Common sense, common knowledge, and common logic is just not good enough. That guy could give McQuaid a run for his money when it comes to covering stuff up.

I don't know how you can put up with slow ditch Bro..
analysis paralysis over there...

 

[thehog]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...never-fighting-to-defend-Lance-Armstrong.aspx

Who is this traitor? McQuaid? Send him down!

--

“For us, the most important thing is that we are not fighting for Lance Armstrong. We are just fighting from the beginning to defend our interpretation of the rules and of the WADA code” he said. “For us, the principle of this controversy was the respect of the international federation rules an autonomy in these kinds of matters. That for us was crucial, not the Lance Armstrong case itself.”

Texas judge Sam Sparks declared that his court did not have jurisdiction, and that the case was not one which should be settled in the federal system.

Effectively it clears the way for USADA to continue with its planned arbitration hearing, providing Armstrong decides not to simply accept the doping charges.

“For sure we accept the decision. What else can we do?” spokesman Enrico Carpani told Velonation, elaborating on a UCI statement acknowledging the decision.

“Our position was based on what we knew at that time and we proposed as a best decision a neutral, independent arbitration. The judge said the same thing. The conclusion is that he can share our concern, and an independent arbitration can meet our concern. So yes, we accept it for sure.”

 

[gillan1969]

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

I'm putting the 'stinging' criticism down to his niavety on how corrupt an international sporting organisation can actually be....from the outside it might lok like a witchunt..even to the learned judge...

however as we all know....

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

This just in!!!

The irony is staggering!!

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...never-fighting-to-defend-Lance-Armstrong.aspx

Ooops...I am 20 minutes off here....

 

[BroDeal]

Too many people on the USPSBus on the side of a col doing transfusions to not remember WTF they were doing!

There is more than 10 witnesses. How many need to be not credible? More than 50%?

I bet most if not all really dont like Armstrong. Hell i bet George doesn't. The reason he wouldn't ride with him when he came back. And i kind of guess most of these riders have been in contact at some stage to discuss this.

The witnesses will have information about different years. CAS may not agree that the statute of limitations can be overcome, so the only witnessse that end up being relevant are those that have info from 2004 to the present. If the SOL can be breached then it may require evidence of recent doping to extend the conspiracy backward. How many witness are there from 2009 - 2011? Maybe just Leipheimer. How many from 2004 and 2005? Maybe just Hincapie and Landis. Perhaps if it cannot be established that Armstrong did anything within the limitation period then evidence beyond the SOL becomes irrelevant. Ten witnesses could end up being two or three.