USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

If Armstrong does choose to go the arbitration path, then he will get to see what evidence the USADA actually has. At that point, he could make a more informed cost-benifit analysis as to the likelyhood of beating some/all of the charges.

Also, going the arbitration path will insert some time into the process - time before any sanctions are levied. He could always then hope for the intervention of a weasel of great power, one that could shut down the USADA initiated arbitration. Arbitration then becomes a stalling tactic, waiting for some other option to come along.

If Armstrong (or any of the other three respondants currently slated for arbitration) selects arbitration, can he subsequently back out and just put his fate to the mercy of the arbitrators?

2nd post and you've just repeated what been said about 9000 times.

Why bother?

 

[Cavalier]

Only 1000s of dollars? Surely they got more than that?

Yea I thought about responding to it and then decided better. Some people just can't be educated.

 

[JA.Tri]

CN Today: Judge issues stinging criticism of USADA...Laura Weislo
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-issues-stinging-criticism-of-usada-in-armstrong-case


"....In the opinion, Sparks takes USADA to task, stating, "there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA's apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him."

In another note, Sparks writes, "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."

This article left me bemused on two fronts. As Hog post 8557 earlier referred Laura makes some comment...but there is so much more she could have added...So for that matter so could Sparks, J.

Laura could have mentioned UCI's about face to put apparent UCI USADA confict in context. That two parties are not in agreement does not indicate that both sides have equally valid contentions.

Equally Sparks, J could have been more even handed in raising this issue.

That Sparks, J points to delay in pursuit is understandable. However this circumstance also points to the difficulty in obtaining evidence and the degree to which this evidence may have been deliberately concealed from detection.

Most bewildering of all, though, is Sparks', J concern with "...USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong".

WTF!

1. Again this surely points to the difficulty obtaining evidence in this matter

2.a I understood/understand that US common legal practice (USclp) is to offer a plea bargain for admission of guilt and that USADA/WADA code specifically allows same

2.b furthermore...USclp and USADA/WADA allow for reduced sanctions in "exchange" for truthful evidence that facilitates either prevention and/or prosecution of sanctionable activities.

As to why Laura did not add further commentary ...Who canna know!

 

[Merckx index]

Arbitration seems like the rational thing for him to do (not to say he will do it). His legal team recognized from the get-go the weakness of USADA's position with a) the SOL; and b) their lack of jurisdiction before 2004 (and before the Tour of that year). If USADA loses on the first point, the best they can do is strip him of two TDF titles. If they lose on the second point, they can only get one title. These are very challenging areas where no clear-cut precedent exists for USADA's position; no comparison with the due process/court jurisdiction issues. And if LA's team does manage to invalidate USADA's case for the earlier time frame, they will also weaken the case for the more recent period, because there are relatively few witnesses who can testify to what LA did then. The majority of witnesses would probably become irrelevant.

Given the possibility of losing some of their case against LA, USADA might be open to a deal, one LA might take if he became convinced he couldn't win on the more recent charges. I think any deal would involve a) stripping some but not all of the TDF titles; b) doing this in some way that would minimize the financial repercussions for LA (SCA, etc); c) a limited but not lifetime ban from competition; and d) providing evidence of UCI corruption. A deal could also minimize the amount of evidence against him that goes public, though no guarantee that some or even all of it wouldn't eventually leak out.

 

[BroDeal]

Incidentally, Armstrong's facebook page is slowly turning against him, but the true believers are just getting more incredible each day.

Quote:
If I were Lance I would fight to the death against the Nazi USADA!!! This is so wrong what they are doing. They cannot take away your life's accomplishments, winning the TDF!!!! You passed over 500 drug tests!! The Judge Mr. Sparks even heavily critised the USADA!!! Why would they wait all of this time to charge you!!! It is very fishy the USADA will not release the evidence. This whole erroneous USADA doping case is extremely fishy!!! There is something going on with the witnesses etc. I bet they paid the witnesses 1000s of dollars. All of the so called witnesses are liars!!!

When Armstrong reads stuff like this, does he feel guilty about misleading people or does he smile about the effectiveness of his propaganda campaign? Maybe the comments are not real. I would not put it past him to his people posting his talking points to his own page.

He seems intent on digging the hole deeper. This is not the way to prepare for an admission

 

[mewmewmew13]

When Armstrong reads stuff like this, does he feel guilty about misleading people or does he smile about the effectiveness of his propaganda campaign? Maybe the comments are not real. I would not put it past him to his people posting his talking points to his own page.

He seems intent on digging the hole deeper. This is not the way to prepare for an admission

He is still denying and pointing fingers at 'erroneous accusations' ..I don't see him ever admitting he did anything. Pathological liar that he is I think he honestly believes it is everyone else's fault.

 

[D-Queued]

When Armstrong reads stuff like this, does he feel guilty about misleading people or does he smile about the effectiveness of his propaganda campaign? Maybe the comments are not real. I would not put it past him to his people posting his talking points to his own page.

He seems intent on digging the hole deeper. This is not the way to prepare for an admission

I think he laughs, and doesn't believe for a second he will every really get caught.

Don't forget Lance's best ever advice on how to win a bike race:

"Run (sic) like you stole something."

Dave.

 

[BroDeal]

Arbitration seems like the rational thing for him to do (not to say he will do it). His legal team recognized from the get-go the weakness of USADA's position with a) the SOL; and b) their lack of jurisdiction before 2004 (and before the Tour of that year). If USADA loses on the first point, the best they can do is strip him of two TDF titles. If they lose on the second point, they can only get one title. These are very challenging areas where no clear-cut precedent exists for USADA's position; no comparison with the due process/court jurisdiction issues. And if LA's team does manage to invalidate USADA's case for the earlier time frame, they will also weaken the case for the more recent period, because there are relatively few witnesses who can testify to what LA did then. The majority of witnesses would probably become irrelevant.

I mentioned that upstream. The number of witnesses could dwindle to two or three, most of them hostile to the USADA, if the SOL cannot be set aside.

The problem with Armstrong's defense is that he is fighting on two fronts. The first is a fight to prevent himself from being officially labeled a doper and having titles stripped. The second is a fight to maintain his public image. The second fight hampers the first.

Even though he might win the fight to keep most of his titles, that will likely take place at the CAS stage. By that time the damage will have been done. A partial victory on the sporting front will still be a disaster on the public relations front.

Public opinion turned against Landis with the prank call to LeMond. There is likely to be even nastier revelations about Armstrong, and he won't be able to write them off as a bad joke by a friend.

He is in an impossible situation. He needs to come up with a way to uphold the SOL or limit the scope of the charges before arbitration.

 

[MarkvW]

I mentioned that upstream. The number of witnesses could dwindle to two or three, most of them hostile to the USADA, if the SOL cannot be set aside.

The problem with Armstrong's defense is that he is fighting on two fronts. The first is a fight to prevent himself from being officially labeled a doper and having titles stripped. The second is a fight to maintain his public image. The second fight hampers the first.

Even though he might win the fight to keep most of his titles, that will likely take place at the CAS stage. By that time the damage will have been done. A partial victory on the sporting front will still be a disaster on the public relations front.

Public opinion turned against Landis with the prank call to LeMond. There is likely to be even nastier revelations about Armstrong, and he won't be able to write them off as a bad joke by a friend.

He is in an impossible situation. He needs to come up with a way to uphold the SOL or limit the scope of the charges before arbitration.

Remember that there are two theories that utilize the witnesses to the 'old' USPS Conspiracy stuff. One theory is doping during the USPS era. Your analysis is valid on that issue. Toss those old counts, and you toss the witnesses that go with them.

But there is also the other "modern" within the statute of limitation theory. USADA is also, quite validly, trying to use the 'old' evidence to prove the "modern" doping. This kind of evidence is often called "common scheme or plan evidence."

Here's a classic use of common scheme or plan: Scumbag uses dope to disable women so he can rape them. By the time they are free of him, the dope is out of their system, and it's a pure swearing contest between the woman and the man. In that kind of situation, you can often introduce the evidence of the old dope-rapes to prove that the modern dope rape was part of the rapists common scheme and plan.

That latter kind of theory is, and should be, still available to USADA.

 

[BroDeal]

But there is also the other "modern" within the statute of limitation theory. USADA is also, quite validly, trying to use the 'old' evidence to prove the "modern" doping. This kind of evidence is often called "common scheme or plan evidence."

Here's a classic use of common scheme or plan: Scumbag uses dope to disable women so he can rape them. By the time they are free of him, the dope is out of their system, and it's a pure swearing contest between the woman and the man. In that kind of situation, you can often introduce the evidence of the old dope-rapes to prove that the modern dope rape was part of the rapists common scheme and plan.

That latter kind of theory is, and should be, still available to USADA.

But has a pattern of behavior or method ever been used in a doping case before? It would seem that anything new is open to challenge. If the case relies on multiple instances of new "law" being made, each of which may not be upheld by CAS, then there are many instances where Armstrong could prevail. It is like a long chain. Only one link needs to be broken.

What opportunities are there for Armstrong to limit the scope of the case before it goes to arbitration?

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

It'll be funny as **** when the arbitrator he picks says he is guilty also. To me, it sounds like the evidence is OVERWHELMING by pure definition.

One can hope. But I think this is going to get dragged on for a while, and mired down in many details, that it's not really going to end up a black & white ruling. The problem for Lance is that he can't just get some of it tossed and call it a full victory. He has to come away with the lions share of the ruling, enough to dismiss the rest in a PR campaign, and it seems most likely he'll instead lose on most counts. But we'll see.

CN Today: Judge issues stinging criticism of USADA...Laura Weislo... This article left me bemused on two fronts. As Hog post 8557 earlier referred Laura makes some comment...but there is so much more she could have added...

As to why Laura did not add further commentary ...Who canna know!

Well, she's a CN writer, and member of this forum (though not very active). Try asking her, politely.

I'm not trying to throw her under the bus (despite what some people think, I do no work here), but considering the importance of the situation, I think you bring up a valid question.

 

[Turner29]

When Armstrong reads stuff like this, does he feel guilty about misleading people or does he smile about the effectiveness of his propaganda campaign? Maybe the comments are not real. I would not put it past him to his people posting his talking points to his own page.

He seems intent on digging the hole deeper. This is not the way to prepare for an admission

Armstrong is a sociopath. As such, he does not feel guilt. His only true emotion is anger.

 

[Deagol]

I strongly disagree Chewie. Just that address to the blogpiece on the numbers game would certainly help some journos make some better calls before they press "publish". Most of them are too pressed for time to really do proper journo work... My point is, in here there´s an abundance of well articulated points, backed up by various degrees of good documentation. So, it needn´t come from the horses mouth. It could just as well come from the "bellybutton lint" who happens to know where the horse is at... thus helping some poor journos do a better job. I dont think it takes that much, really. And sometimes you might be able to make that snowball start rolling. Same for the Race Radio man. He seems to be in the know here and there?

seems that the blogger Anna Zimmerman has already done a pretty good job ??

 

[MarkvW]

But has a pattern of behavior or method ever been used in a doping case before? It would seem that anything new is open to challenge. If the case relies on multiple instances of new "law" being made, each of which may not be upheld by CAS, then there are many instances where Armstrong could prevail. It is like a long chain. Only one link needs to be broken.

What opportunities are there for Armstrong to limit the scope of the case before it goes to arbitration?

Nope, it hasn't. But it is a component of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and Lance is never going to be able to successfully argue that evidence that could be admitted pursuant to the FRE is not evidence admitted pursuant to due process.

 

[pedaling squares]

I have argued that before. The information here is buried in thousands of posts. A resource of easy to digest information would help immensely. Infographics are easy to pass ground, so they can leave a big footprint.

Briefly we discussed setting up something like Trust But Verify.

What about something catchy like http://www.facts4lance.com? I'm sure the guy who owns that domain would alter the content from quick trim (sidebar: maybe Wigans and Vroome own the domain) to something more... informative.

 

[Oldman]

I mentioned that upstream. The number of witnesses could dwindle to two or three, most of them hostile to the USADA, if the SOL cannot be set aside.

The problem with Armstrong's defense is that he is fighting on two fronts. The first is a fight to prevent himself from being officially labeled a doper and having titles stripped. The second is a fight to maintain his public image. The second fight hampers the first.

Even though he might win the fight to keep most of his titles, that will likely take place at the CAS stage. By that time the damage will have been done. A partial victory on the sporting front will still be a disaster on the public relations front.

Public opinion turned against Landis with the prank call to LeMond. There is likely to be even nastier revelations about Armstrong, and he won't be able to write them off as a bad joke by a friend.

He is in an impossible situation. He needs to come up with a way to uphold the SOL or limit the scope of the charges before arbitration.

There's another twist: get an admission based on the longstanding participation by USAC. USADA and others may want a cleansing of the systemic problem as the victory. On a major policy level this is a much better tone to set. It's a given that the individuals are prone to vanity and weakness but how about exposing the greater threat?
You might think that's a stretch but what would serve the ongoing crusade to make sport cleaner (marketable) to the upcoming generations?
Parade of victims is a win/win.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

If they strip Levi of his victories, will they also strip us of the horrible memories of watching him wheelsuck his way to them?

 

[sittingbison]

Very apt - because when I read Pats letters last week all I could think of was Eric Cartman and him saying "Respect My Authority".

your wish is my command %)

 

[rhubroma]

I did note several cautions to USADA about following due process.

Not that I think they were necessary, but it is clear Sparks had a concern.

On these issues judge Sparks clearly doesn't know the UCI or about cycling in general. Secondly USADA arbitration, as far as I understand, isn't beholden to the same standard of "burden of proof" as would be maintained in a civil case. Thirdly, in withholding evidence from Armstrong and his legal team before receiving a request for a public hearing, USADA is merely following a procedural outlet at its disposal provided within its own constitution to which Armstrong consented to abide by as a USAC pro license holder.

Judge Sparks should have taken this into consideration and realize that once Armstrong and his legal team were to request a hearing, they would be given full access to all the evidence being used by USADA against the Texan and consequently be able to build their defense around it with all the guarantees of due process as in any other legal hearing. Besides, USADA has always maintained its position that if it has decided not to lay down all its the cards on the table initially and withhold evidence from Armstrong and his lawyers until due time, it is because of the Texan's ferocious reputation to intimidate, both personally and legally, any compromising witnesses against him and his cycling legacy.

It thus seems as if judge Sparks is deliberately trying to protect himself from a certain public (and probably certain political) scrutiny over his siding with USADA in throwing out the Armstrong crew's motion to check the anti-doping governing body's action against him. For only an idiot would believe that USADA, given the delicate and sensitive matter (both public and political) of the Armstrong case, would brazenly attempt to deny the defendant's right to due process. A sort of washing his hands of all responsibility and bloodshed, in a manner of speaking, in the style of Pontius Pilate; though in this case the accused is no messiah.

At any rate, as for as the "political end" of the case goes: in regards to the means with which USADA gathered its testimony in probably cutting deals with witnesses to amass damning accounts in exchange for leniency - well that's just part of the game in mafia cases like this when dealing with the big fish. For cycling, like all pro sport - the IOC, World Cup Soccer, the NFL, the NBA, the NBL - is a mafia, with all the hierarchical corruption, the circulation of colossal sums of money, commercial interests, hypocrisy and omertà to boot; and to go after the big bosses one must thus resort to certain tactics. In addition, however, wasn't it Lance all along who has tried to "politicize" everything: first during his career by amassing a propaganda campaign to bolster his image (also through his Cancer Foundation) and also to smear, bully and intimidate, personally and legally, any and all colleagues who stated things contrary to the script? Wasn't it the Texan who all along worked through the political outlets of the UCI with bribery and his commercial image status to gain effective impunity for his sporting crimes within the governing body of cycling – a unique and perverse status that none of his other colleagues enjoyed. And wasn't it he, buddy of George Bush, who had worked outlets within the republican party to first get the federal case against him dropped and then to call into question and demonize USADA in his currant legal odyssey? So if there is anybody politicizing the case it is the Texan himself, which judge Sparks should well know but neglected to say.

Lastly as far as the IOC is concerned, let's just leave that alone Judge Sparks now shall we. As if star and cash cow olympian's like Bolt would ever be found positive for doping. At any rate the IOC thinks only of its pocketbook, while the USADA is only proceeding with its job: namely to fight doping in sport and to punish dopers.

 

[sniper]

CN Today: Judge issues stinging criticism of USADA...Laura Weislo
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-issues-stinging-criticism-of-usada-in-armstrong-case


"....In the opinion, Sparks takes USADA to task, stating, "there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA's apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him."

In another note, Sparks writes, "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."
...

I'm not reading the bolded paragraph as criticism of USADA.

The subsequent paragraph definitely is stinging, though.

 

[sittingbison]

Armstrong is a sociopath. As such, he does not feel guilt. His only true emotion is anger.

Everyone has been presuming that for the next step Lance will act logically, or heed sage advice. He is a sociopath, he will not act logically, he will not heed advice.

seems that the blogger Anna Zimmerman has already done a pretty good job ??

Anna has done a terrific job the past month or so, she tries to impart a humorous slant, sometimes misses the mark, but has persevered and made all the salient points. She has done this all alone, without the support we in the clinic derive from each other, and has now attracted the attention of lance idiotic vilify hate brigade.

Some here have attacked her because of her liking of Franck, well not everyone is totally doper hunter inclined, and she did title her blog "say it aint so Franck" which to me (an aussie not a godamn) harks to shoeless joe jackson, so she IS calling Franck out.

Anyhoo she has well and truly nailed Lances hide to the wall, AND she is in Austin Texas lol. That takes some cojones hehe both of 'em no doubt lol. Her blog is well worth a read, lots of analysis of Lances predicament

 

[JA.Tri]

On these issues judge Sparks clearly doesn't know the UCI or about cycling in general. Secondly USADA arbitration, as far as I understand, isn't beholden to the same standard of "burden of proof"...

...snip....for brevity only...


... And wasn't it he, buddy of George Bush, who had worked outlets within the republican party to first get the federal case against him dropped and then to call into question and demonize USADA in his currant legal odyssey? So if there is anybody politicizing the case it is the Texan himself, which judge Sparks should well know but neglected to say.

Lastly as far as the IOC is concerned, let's just leave that alone Judge Sparks now shall we. As if star and cash cow olympian's like Bolt would ever be found positive for doping. At any rate the IOC thinks only of its pocketbook, while the USADA is only proceeding with its job: namely to fight doping in sport and to punish dopers.

Excellent!

 

[JA.Tri]

Everyone has been presuming that for the next step Lance will act logically, or heed sage advice. He is a sociopath, he will not act logically, he will not heed advice.



Anna has done a terrific job the past month or so, she tries to impart a humorous slant, sometimes misses the mark, but has persevered and made all the salient points. She has done this all alone, without the support we in the clinic derive from each other, and has now attracted the attention of lance idiotic vilify hate brigade.

Some here have attacked her because of her liking of Franck, well not everyone is totally doper hunter inclined, and she did title her blog "say it aint so Franck" which to me (an aussie not a godamn) harks to shoeless joe jackson, so she IS calling Franck out.

Anyhoo she has well and truly nailed Lances hide to the wall, AND she is in Austin Texas lol. That takes some cojones hehe both of 'em no doubt lol. Her blog is well worth a read, lots of analysis of Lances predicament

Bolded....Spot on bro !

 

[Morbius]

Isn't the likely next step for Armstrong to accept arbitration and then to argue all the procedural and jurisdiction questions there? At this stage I believe WADA and UCI will be in the room in some kind of observation capacity (I didn't really understand this bit).

The arguments there could go on for ages, in front of people with less ability than Sparks to see through [stuff]

 

[ebandit]

facts4lance

Standing by for the "long list of eyenwitnesses" amongst other "evidence" USADA must release.

Get ready for more Franky, Floyd and Tyler rhetoric. How original.

I seriously hope USADA has something more than the usual crap which got the Feds and everybody else nowhere.

But alas, it wont matter. The outcome was predetmined a year ago by USADA.

the Outcome was Predetermined earlier by Pharmstrong's Fraudulent Activities

lance is becoming increasingly less relevant ......He is Toasted

only Way forward for Poor lance is to FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT / DELAY DELAY DELAY

but He Ain't getting any Younger and He Needs to Compete to Maintain Endorsements

it has been suggested that lance should 'Man Up' and confess but My Take is that lance confuses Masculinity with Physical Strength