USADA - Armstrong

[Jeremiah]

Sweet dancin' baby Jesus!

Is the US really this litigously crazy? I guess it is...

Pushing 900 pages of people p*ssing about the finer points of... what? I'm not really sure.

At least Sparks had the sense to say "not my ball", while all the Yanks argue the finer points of constitutional law (which have no bearing on the matter).

Buddy is going to have to step up and admit. That's what everything points to, and what the witnesses say (as we've understood thus far).

As to the bolded, yeah!

To be, or not to be : that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;

The more things change the more they stay the same.....

 

[Deagol]

"...

This isn't checkmate, at all. Basically we are back to square one, and the same question: Will Lance Arbitrate, or won't he?

I am inclined to agree with this statement. To me, it seems like a long road

 

[Jeremiah]

Her broader point is that if Armstrong accepts arbitration then he will be bound by the result (I assume that is only true as far as U.S. courts are concerned), so the obvious strategy is to appeal to a higher authority, the UCI or CAS, and invalidate the USADA's judgement against him. It does not have to be done in U.S. federal court. He could end up in Swiss courts after CAS.

I am not so sure that he will get nothing from the UCI. They struck out in U.S. federal court but who is to say they won't try again with CAS? It is not Judge Sparks job to decide which sporting agency should proceed against Armstrong.

But then the IOC will throw cycling out of the olympics.

 

[Race Radio]

 

[Jeremiah]

As for Armstrong's attorneys, having to use the only arguments you have is nothing new, and hell, if you start throwing enough money, you have a better shot of getting off. But this isn't a jury of peers, this will be an arbitration panel of people who are very familiar with the subject at hand, and well versed in the process of arbitration. I have faith, though I not certainty in the outcome.

But the objective was to stop the arbitration.

That's why you can have faith that it's over...... although it isn't over till it's over and the fat lady sings and so on.....

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Is this a prophecy or an opinion about what you think he should do? I'm hoping for the former.

 

[ggusta]

Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
-Justice John Paul Stevens [Dissent] Bush v. Gore (2000)


But the objective was to stop the arbitration.

That's why you can have faith that it's over...... although it isn't over till it's over and the fat lady sings and so on.....

wrong thread.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

She's a bit of dimwit and maybe she need to go have a cup of java with Lance.

Which bit does she forget about "accepting the charges" in not going to arbitration did she miss?

In addition arbitration needs to play out before you can claim it was unfair. You need a judgment to be made. To then take to CAS and to then appeal.

What she proposes is like "pleading guilty" then claiming the decision was unfair.

A better play would be to accept arbitration but not show up. Claim a mistrial or something.

Sorry.....not so dimwit. Inconvienient for fanboys yes....dimwit....not a chance.

 

[Page Mill Masochist]

As to the initial claim, well, it was audacious bs. However that kind of thing has worked before.

5 SCOTUS justices threw every shred of their integrity out the window, and tarred their entire collective legacy with Bush v Gore, where they decided it was a nation of men and not laws.

Armstrong's icon (although crumbling) status served him well ending the criminal case.

In the same vein Armstrong and his attorney's thought they were bigger than the law and could bs some no-name judge. I'll bet if the judge had been more of a celebrity Armstrong would have had a good shot at prevailing.

Once the judge showed he didn't give a $hit who Armstrong was, the wind was taken out of counsel's sails.

They knew it was game over; the game never being about the law.

Do us a favor and keep your rants about U.S. politics out of this. Sparks happens to be (gulp!) a Republican who was appointed by a Republican and he ruled for ... us. (Wow. Imagine that. Limited government works.)

Armstrong's political friends, on the other hand, are Democrats like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Judge Birotte, and so on.

This is completely antithetical to your rants. More importantly, it's also completely irrelevant to this case. So stop it.

 

[Race Radio]

Armstrong's political friends, on the other hand, are Democrats like Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Judge Birotte, and so on.

Yes they are.....more on this soon

 

[mewmewmew13]

She's a bit of dimwit and maybe she need to go have a cup of java with Lance.

Which bit does she forget about "accepting the charges" in not going to arbitration did she miss?

In addition arbitration needs to play out before you can claim it was unfair. You need a judgment to be made. To then take to CAS and to then appeal.

What she proposes is like "pleading guilty" then claiming the decision was unfair.

A better play would be to accept arbitration but not show up. Claim a mistrial or something.

I'm not sure why she has all of a sudden stepped into the spotlight to be an official town crier about Armstrong.

Yes, she writes well and is enjoying her position, but she is not an expert and her opinions, while maybe sometimes are hashed through with friends before blogging, are random and hopeful. This one is reaching...

Well, that sounds like the bulk of the Clinic I guess....



...maybe she's a plant by lance to gather information.

 

[MarkvW]

Her broader point is that if Armstrong accepts arbitration then he will be bound by the result (I assume that is only true as far as U.S. courts are concerned), so the obvious strategy is to appeal to a higher authority, the UCI or CAS, and invalidate the USADA's judgement against him. It does not have to be done in U.S. federal court. He could end up in Swiss courts after CAS.

I am not so sure that he will get nothing from the UCI. They struck out in U.S. federal court but who is to say they won't try again with CAS? It is not Judge Sparks job to decide which sporting agency should proceed against Armstrong.

Some posters have said that Lance can opt to go directly to CAS. That would allow him to preserve his arguments, while still avoiding the USADA arbitration. That would be better than waiving everything by not appearing, wouldn't it?

If he goes direct to CAS, who knows what will happen there?

 

[Kretch]

Yes they are.....more on this soon

How he got Borat to drop the fed case is the key to understanding his next move methinks.

 

[BroDeal]

Some posters have said that Lance can opt to go directly to CAS. That would allow him to preserve his arguments, while still avoiding the USADA arbitration. That would be better than waiving everything by not appearing, wouldn't it?

If he goes direct to CAS, who knows what will happen there?

It seems to me there ought to be a way for him (or anybody for that matter) to challenge the scope of the case before arbitration, just like pretrial motions in a regular court. The nature of the hearing would change considerably if it was restricted to what he did in 2004 - 2011. His chances would improve.

 

[thehog]

How he got Borat to drop the fed case is the key to understanding his next move methinks.

The promise of top flight medical treatment used to sway and apply pressure.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It seems to me there ought to be a way for him (or anybody for that matter) to challenge the scope of the case before arbitration. The nature of the hearing would change considerably if it was restricted to what he did in 2004 - 2011. His chances would improve.

There isn't according to the case law. I am not a fan of this particular feature, but the fact is that the arbitrators have the ability to decide that issue.

 

[sittingbison]

I was under the impression that if Armstrong refuses to arbitrate then they will strip him of all seven...

I give zero likelihood he will go to arbitration. My question is can the USADA air its evidence if he elects that option?...

Statement of Fact? I would like to think that if he refuses to arbitrate, he is found guilty of the charging letter ie a conspiracy dating back to 1998, and will be stripped of all wins etc.

USADA would be obliged to be forthcoming with reasons for finding him guilty, and given his recent performances with them I think they will not hold back on being entirely forthcoming

 

[masking_agent]

anyone know or if Novitzky has commented on the latest situation ? I'd be interested to know what he thinks. Will his work play a role in this ?

anyone know if Michael Ashenden has commented on the latest as well ? or if his research will play a role at this stage ?

and what of Chris Carmichael ? I haven't heard from this guy during these latest proceedings at all ? Will he be part of the revelation when it all comes out ?

thanks in advance

 

[Ferminal]

Some posters have said that Lance can opt to go directly to CAS. That would allow him to preserve his arguments, while still avoiding the USADA arbitration. That would be better than waiving everything by not appearing, wouldn't it?

If he goes direct to CAS, who knows what will happen there?

You wouldn't be in a rush to go to CAS would you?

After that, your only avenues are Swiss courts.

 

[MarkvW]

You wouldn't be in a rush to go to CAS would you?

After that, your only avenues are Swiss courts.

I think I get your point. Every day that there is not a hearing is its own little victory.

 

[jackwolf]

You wouldn't be in a rush to go to CAS would you?

After that, your only avenues are Swiss courts.

Switzerland is not part of the European Union if that's what you mean.

 

[Kretch]

The promise of top flight medical treatment used to sway and apply pressure.

Wouldn't it be great if he had the dope on some doped pol?

 

[sittingbison]

She's a bit of dimwit and maybe she need to go have a cup of java with Lance. Which bit does she forget about "accepting the charges" in not going to arbitration did she miss? In addition arbitration needs to play out before you can claim it was unfair. You need a judgment to be made. To then take to CAS and to then appeal. What she proposes is like "pleading guilty" then claiming the decision was unfair. A better play would be to accept arbitration but not show up. Claim a mistrial or something.

I think her observations in this instance have "no merit." And I just don't see this sort of scenario playing itself out. Armstrong at this point isn't getting anything from the UCI and and his counsel would have to be utterly deaf, dumb and blind to allow the arbitration to go by default and then, having done so, try to file another lawsuit again alleging that the abitrators had no jurisdiction, given Sparks' 30-page opinion. My understanding is that Ms. Zimmerman isn't a lawyer. I will give her credit because she's bright and a quick study for the most part. But on this point, I just think she's way off-base.

Her broader point is that if Armstrong accepts arbitration then he will be bound by the result (I assume that is only true as far as U.S. courts are concerned), so the obvious strategy is to appeal to a higher authority, the UCI or CAS, and invalidate the USADA's judgement against him. It does not have to be done in U.S. federal court. He could end up in Swiss courts after CAS.....

I'm not sure why she has all of a sudden stepped into the spotlight to be an official town crier about Armstrong. Yes, she writes well and is enjoying her position, but she is not an expert and her opinions, while maybe sometimes are hashed through with friends before blogging, are random and hopeful. This one is reaching...

Well, that sounds like the bulk of the Clinic I guess....

Several things:
1) Lance is a sociopath. His response will not be based on logic or legal advice.
2) Anna is a blog writer. Read her blog or not, enjoy it or not, agree with it or not.
3) Anna is alone in the night facing attack and vilification by Lances wolves. She has not got the broader support we enjoy in the clinic. That takes courage.
4) Anna lives in Austin Texas. She is nailing Lances hide to the barn door through humor and literary device. She is not a dimwit. That takes another kind of courage.
5) Anna is not the town crier, this thread is 9000 posts with a million views. She is another voice, and instead of denigrating her, we denizens of the clinic should be applauding her for fighting, in her own way, the good fight.

Chapeau Anna.

I reiterate, whatever speculation we have as to Lances next action, he is a sociopath. His response will not be based on logic or legal advice.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Several things:
1) Lance is a sociopath. His response will not be based on logic or legal advice.
2) Anna is a blog writer. Read her blog or not, enjoy it or not, agree with it or not.
3) Anna is alone in the night facing attack and vilification by Lances wolves. She has not got the broader support we enjoy in the clinic. That takes courage.
4) Anna lives in Austin Texas. She is nailing Lances hide to the barn door through humor and literary device. She is not a dimwit. That takes another kind of courage.
5) Anna is not the town crier, this thread is 9000 posts with a million views. She is another voice, and instead of denigrating her, we denizens of the clinic should be applauding her for fighting, in her own way, the good fight.

Chapeau Anna.

I reiterate, whatever speculation we have as to Lances next action, he is a sociopath. His response will not be based on logic or legal advice.

I appreciate your support for Anna.

3) Anna put herself out there 'alone in the night'....ask her if she enjoys the publicity
4)I applaud her for speaking her mind and standing up for her views...but really, if she is putting it out there to the public why is it a surprise that Armstrong might make a rebuke on twitter ...or however he contacted her...!? Creepy, yes, but unexpected given his m.o?...no. She chose a high-profile target

 

[sashimono]

I expect Lance will keep trying to undermine the authority of the USADA, because its cheaper than undermining all the witnesses.

I bet he has a Private Investigator in Colorado Springs right now.