- Status
- Jul 5, 2012
- 2,878
- 1
- 11,485
mewmewmew13 said:
I'm sure she enjoys her publicity. She puts out a blog, like about a million others. It was certainly creepy HOW Lance tweeted her, but what is more surprising is that he DID tweet her - one of the most famous, rich and powerful athletes in Texas
personally contacting a blogger Lance must still be using his blackberry
We have ALL chosen a high profile target, but we lurk in the lair of the Clinic surrounded by fellow denizens, twelve apostles and the odd fanboy.
Anyway, the point is she has an opinion just like all of us here, she expresses that opinion on her blog while we choose to do so here. Again, that takes courage when we ALL know that Lance is a vindictive sociopath who has gone after Emma, David, Betsy, Frankie, Floyd, Tyler...
She is fighting the good fight. Instead of having a pop at her, support her. You don't have to agree with her.
Back on topic, Lance is a sociopath, he will not respond logically or heed legal advice. His choices are extremely simple, agree to arbitration of not.
If he does not agree to arbitration, he will be found guilty of the instances listed on the charge letter, namely a conspiracy of team based doping and pedaling dating back to 1998 and lose all titles. USADA will probably publish a full and frank Fact. UCI will have to follow the USADA or be booted from the Olympics, which would lead to their complete destruction. He could face civil litigation. He could face Federal prosecution for perjury and fraud.
If he does agree to arbitration, he can opt for public or private hearing. The most likely scenario is he will be found guilty of the instances listed on the charge letter, namely a conspiracy of team based doping and pedaling dating back to 1998 and lose all titles. USADA will probably publish a full and frank Fact. UCI will have to follow the USADA or be booted from the Olympics, which would lead to their complete destruction. He could face civil litigation. He could face Federal prosecution for perjury and fraud.
Either way all the evidence will leak out, it always does.
It seems to me he is screwed either way, so expect an unusual response.
And because he is a sociopath, he will not go quietly into the night, he will go down kicking and screaming, taking everybody with him - Hog, Tailwind, USAC, UCI, Ferrari, Del Moral the lot. And all his team mates on USPS, Disco and Astana.
ChewbaccaD said:To the highlighted, I would suggest that your pontifications on what is really happening has been pretty dismal, so I suspect again that you have a bias based on reverence for Armstrong.
To the efficacy of his attorneys, I ask you Mr. Federal Court Lawyer, how would your clients feel if your initial claim was resoundingly dismissed causing you much embarrassment in the press, and then they blew a filing deadline and had to go begging for an extension? Then they violated local rules when they replied to the USADA's final response. Yea, all the criminal defense attorneys I know are always doing things like that...
Sure they have crap to work with, but that doesn't excuse mistakes like the ones they have made. Keystone cops.
It must be wonderful to have learned all there is to learn as a second or third year law student. If I were you, I'd try not to be so smug and self-satisfied about what you think you know. Being bitter, snide, denigrating and insulting to others is (to paraphrase Dean Wormer), no way to go through life, Mr. Dorfman.
As to the substance of your point that you think Armstrong's attorneys are particularly inept (Keystone Cops was, I think the phrase you used), well, in the long run, what you view as their ineptitude made no difference at all, did it? The judge allowed them to amend the complaint; the judge granted their request for an extension of time to file their reply to the motion to dismiss; and (in his opinion granting the motion to dismiss) the judge also granted their request to file the sur-reply that exceeded the pagination limit contained in the local rules. So the things you point to really didn't amount to much., and the judge wasn't distracted by things that, in the long run, didn't affect his decision. Sure Armstrong lost the case, but if you read the judge's opinion, it wasn't because he didn't think Armstrong had competent counsel. Every case has a winner and a loser, and Armstrong lost. That doesn't mean he has a claim for malpractice or that his lawyers committed malpractice, or even that they didn't present the best case they could, given what they had to work with (and who they had to work with).
No one can achieve perfection in a case 100 % of the time. Everyone makes errors. Everyone. Personally, I can't wait for you to pass the bar exam and then come back here in 30 years and tell us all that you've won every case and in the process that you have never made an error or that you've never had to ask the court to allow you to correct something, either a missed filing date or that you've never requested an extension of time. In the real world, at least the world I live in, no one never makes an error. But when you do, you move on, and no one gets hung up on the small stuff. You focus on the case and what you have to work with, and you make the best of it. If you've got lemons, sometimes all you can do is make lemonade.
But really, I do wish you'd lighten up a bit and be a little less insulting and condescending. I realize this is the Clinic, where that seems to be par for the course with some posters, but really, it's just not necessary or even helpful, and it's actually quite distracting.
Have a nice day.
ChewbaccaD said:
Actually, there is a way, as even Chewbacca notes, the arbitators if asked during the preliminary confernce that will be held with the parties and the panel will deal with any "pretrial" issues that could conceivably affect the scope of the artibration. The preliminary conference is specifically provided for in the AAA Commercial Arbitraiton Rules (which govern and apply to the USADA Protocols, as set forth in Appendix D of the Protocols).
I can't say with any degree of confidence what the arbitrators would do in this case, but I've participated in hundreds of AAA Commiercial arbitrations and it is my consistent experience that in every case where issues affecting the scope of the arbitration have arisen, or the question even of the arbitrability of certain claims has been questioned, or a statute of limitations issue is present which could severely limit the scope of the evidence to be offered and either lengthen or shorten the proceedings, that the arbitrators have the power to bifurcate the proceedings and to determine motions on such issues in any order they choose.
If Armstrong decides to arbitrate, I would think his next move would be to participate in the selction and nomination process set forth in the Protocols and AAA rules, and then to ask for a preliminary conference with the arbitrators to address issues such as the statute of limitations question, the questino of whether or not USADA can bring a consolidated proceeding and whether that is authorized under the rules, whether the arbitrators will allow limited and expedited discovery (e.g., short and down and dirty depositions of the key witnesses identified by USADA, with the depos to be taken before the testimony is offered into evidence), etc.
In short, the fact that the parties are required to arbitrate their issues does not mean that the arbitrators will be completely deaf to the issues that Armstlong's lawyers will attempt to raise and which they attempted to raise in the now-dismissed litigation. To what extent the arbitrators allow certain issues to be adjudicated is going to be very interesting because, it can affect the ultimate enforceability of any award rendered. I say this because there are essentially two ways that an arbitration award is vacated by a court: 1. Corruption of the arbitrators (e.g., the arbitrators are bribed), or 2. Where the arbitrators refuse to allow a party to present some or all of its defense or case (i.e., wilfully refusing to allow a party to litigate a defense such as the statute of limitations). And this being the case, I think it very unlikely that in a case that is this high profile, the arbitrators will act, willy-nilly, and refuse to allow Armstrong to litigate issues like the statute of limitations or the application of the Protocols and WADA Code to the particular claims that are being asserted by USADA, specifically, the consipiracy allegations and whether or not USADA really can bring a consolidated proceeding. Those are issues that even Judge Sparks agreed in his opinion are subject to being determined in the course of and within the scope of the arbitration.
I think many people here are getting way ahead of themselves, thinking that if the case goes to arbitration that Armstong won't be able to do anything other than say "I didn't do it and everyone else is lying." There is still a lot of legal manuevering to be done and even though some here think Armstrong's attorneys are idiots, believe me, they aren't.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 2,878
- 1
- 11,485
QuickStepper said:
Not wanting to start a flame war here QuickStepper, but I was under the impression that USADA graciously agreed for these instances to be rectified. And these instances ARE Keystone Cops - PR stunt submission tossed out, missing deadlines, over limit - this is not normal practice
for $1000 per hour lawyers.Anyway, the performance of Lances hired assassins has been well and truly done to death about 4000 posts ago, lets let it lie shall we?
- Aug 6, 2009
- 2,111
- 7
- 11,495
The pseudo-legal briefs posted in this thread by forum members have now exceeded the actual documents from the USADA, the UCI and Judge Sparks combined by a quotient of 1,000.
Chill out, guys. There really isn't all that much to decipher until Armstrong makes his next move.
It's all up to him.
I'm assuming he has three choices-
1) Refile the same lawsuit against the USADA in some Federal court in Louisiana right before the USADA deadline on Thursday, if I'm not mistaken.
What he hopes to get out of this I don't know. For us it just delays the process, but maybe that's what he is looking to do for various reasons.
2) Go to arbitration.
3) Not go to arbitration and accept whatever bans and stripping of his titles may or may not occur.
Am I missing anything here?
Chill out, guys. There really isn't all that much to decipher until Armstrong makes his next move.
It's all up to him.
I'm assuming he has three choices-
1) Refile the same lawsuit against the USADA in some Federal court in Louisiana right before the USADA deadline on Thursday, if I'm not mistaken.
What he hopes to get out of this I don't know. For us it just delays the process, but maybe that's what he is looking to do for various reasons.
2) Go to arbitration.
3) Not go to arbitration and accept whatever bans and stripping of his titles may or may not occur.
Am I missing anything here?
sittingbison said:Not wanting to start a flame war here QuickStepper, but I was under the impression that USADA graciously agreed for these instances to be rectified. And these instances ARE Keystone Cops - PR stunt submission tossed out, missing deadlines, over limit - this is not normal practice
Anyway, the performance of Lances hired assassins has been well and truly done to death about 4000 posts ago, lets let it lie shall we?
I realize you're just expressing your opinion, but seriously, are you a moderator? Why are you telling me and others what ought to and ought not to be posted. Don't you think that's a bit presumptuous of you? Especially since my post wasn't directed to anyone other than the person to whom it was in reply to. Whatever.....
Berzin said:
Yes, you clearly haven't read the prior 900 pages of posts, have you? LOL. All of this has been previously covered. Many times.
- May 19, 2012
- 537
- 0
- 0
Page Mill Masochist said:
I wasn't aware that Sparks ruled for ....us. I was just hoping that he'd rule based on the law and not on who Armstrong is.
I won't argue the rant part but it's not about U.S. politics. It's about the U.S. legal system which is supposed to be about the law.
That Sparks is a Republican appointed by a Republican should be irrelevant. Please spare me your rants about Limited government which has nothing to do with this decision or with being an impartial guardian of the law.
Page Mill Masochist said:
Sensenbrenner and King from Iowa are Democrats too? They aren't voicing their opinions about wasting U.S. tax dollars on USADA?
Listen, I agree with you that the people behind the ridiculous decision to drop the criminal case are Democrats.
You missed the point I was trying to make because you are the one hung up on politics.
My point was that the only reason Judge Sparks decision was in doubt was because of the corruption of the judiciary which is exemplified by Bush v Gore. Bush v Gore was based on the prejudices of the Justices in the majority, not the law.
Page Mill Masochist said:
The relevance of John Paul Stevens opinion in Bush v Gore is that the public has lost confidence in the Judiciary. BTW, Stevens was a Republican appointed by a Republican POTUS.
Based on the law Armstrong did not have a snowball's chance in hell of prevailing. The only chance he had was that he could corrupt the process because the process is run by fallible humans. The fear that he could corrupt Democrats who were running the criminal case which was borne out, also carried over to the lawsuit. Happily, Sparks made his ruling based on the law.
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)
Susan Westemeyer
Retired Moderator
- Mar 5, 2009
- 8,463
- 18
- 17,510
If tehre is need for a discussion of politics or the state of the US judicial system, it will take place in the Cafe, not the Clinic. And most certainly not in this thread.
Any further such postings will be automatically deleted and suspensions handed out.
Susan
Any further such postings will be automatically deleted and suspensions handed out.
Susan
- May 19, 2012
- 537
- 0
- 0
QuickStepper said:
But Armstrong is offering an absolute defense that he didn't dope. The people who are arguing all kinds of legal technicalities apparently don't realize how absurd it looks when Armstrong is claiming he didn't do the "crime" but has the need to make the questions so restrictive.
If he didn't do it, he should be able to be completely transparent without fear of anything USADA can do. He just has to answer honestly.
Excessive legal manuevering by slick attorneys makes Armstrong look guilty.
Funny that we all know he's guilty but we're even engaging in this silliness.
- Jul 5, 2012
- 2,878
- 1
- 11,485
Berzin said:
Cavalier said:
Couldnt have said it better myself
and I have now discovered the delights of the ignore feature Berzin said:
Arbitrate, or not arbitrate. That's the only decision.
Not arbitrate = automatically found guilty of all items on charge letter. He can then either accept the finding, or contest through 5th circuit that USADA does not have jurisdiction. I am unsure he can go to CAS if he does not contest, but I presume not. Can't have your cake and eat it to
. But the USADA will make their finding no matter what he does.Arbitrate = accept USADA has jurisdiction ipso facto he cannot go to 5th circuit but can appeal to CAS if found guilty.
I reiterate, he is a sociopath and will not respond logically, or heed legal advice. I would not be surprised if he completely ignores the arbitration, but the UCI will have to comply with stripping him of titles or be expelled from Olympics.
I suspect though he will go full arbitration with open hearings, forcing all the witness testimony be made public. He will deny the lot, relying on his fan base to keep him going post finding. In doing so he will bring down everybody associated with his demise, Tailwind, USAC, UCI, Hog, and most importantly all his team mates from USPS, Discovery and Astana. There is no way he can allow them all to get off if he goes down.
Cavalier said:
The case is USADA vs. Armstrong. It's a legal case. The title of this thread is "USADA--Armstrong, "and the prior 900+ pages is about that case.
The legal thread is really a completely different kind of thread and it's not designed to address the issues that have been discussed here (there may be some crossover, but fundamentally, the legal thread is really a different kind of thread, with a different focus than just one case). The discussion of the issues here, the evidence that USADA may offer, and the parties involved in USADA vs. Armstrong don't belong in that legal thread. At least that's my take on it and it's why I think the mods here have recognized that there's really no way to discuss USADA vs. Armstrong except in the context of what is clearly a legal case. And besides, there's plenty of speculation going on here about the anticipated evidence, the prospective witnesses and the impact, in a much larger context, that this case could have, so the discussion is not all technical, legal jargon.
Susan Westemeyer
Retired Moderator
- Mar 5, 2009
- 8,463
- 18
- 17,510
Obviously the legal discussion of this case is allowed. But a general discussion of the US judicial system, various non-Armstrong relevant Supreme Court decisions, and such matters are not topics for this thread.
But please feel free to open such a thread in the Cafe, to discuss matters there -- as long as the discussion remains factual and polite.
Susan
But please feel free to open such a thread in the Cafe, to discuss matters there -- as long as the discussion remains factual and polite.
Susan
We have ALL chosen a high profile target, but we lurk in the lair of the Clinic surrounded by fellow denizens, twelve apostles and the odd fanboy.
I am not odd!
So, what are Lance's options here? They can't be that engaging, right?
If he proceeds and goes in to arbitration with USADA, then it'll be words against words. But I must say, I am curious to see all the evidence and witnesses they have (that we haven't heard already). Seriously. I want that OUT in the open. For everyones sake.
PS: And this needs to be completely transperant. USADA need to put everything on the table. If the evidence is hard enough, Lance can bring in as much dirty laundry as he wants.. it would just be "ad hominem". The evidence would still be on the table.
Let's get this thing done, people!
I am not odd!
So, what are Lance's options here? They can't be that engaging, right?
If he proceeds and goes in to arbitration with USADA, then it'll be words against words. But I must say, I am curious to see all the evidence and witnesses they have (that we haven't heard already). Seriously. I want that OUT in the open. For everyones sake.
PS: And this needs to be completely transperant. USADA need to put everything on the table. If the evidence is hard enough, Lance can bring in as much dirty laundry as he wants.. it would just be "ad hominem". The evidence would still be on the table.
Let's get this thing done, people!
Personally, I find the legal stuff of great interest and certainly pertinent. I learn a great deal from the input of QS, Mark,chewie, et al. It's real brain food for me and I appreciate it - so thanks guys.
From what Quickstepper says, there could actually be real benefit for Armstrong to go into arbitration - which wasn't what I previously thought. It may even arguably be his best next step. He stands a chance of getting some questions addressed that may delay, or even stall, the process - if that were his aim.
From what Quickstepper says, there could actually be real benefit for Armstrong to go into arbitration - which wasn't what I previously thought. It may even arguably be his best next step. He stands a chance of getting some questions addressed that may delay, or even stall, the process - if that were his aim.
Rainfox said:We have ALL chosen a high profile target, but we lurk in the lair of the Clinic surrounded by fellow denizens, twelve apostles and the odd fanboy.
I am not odd!
So, what are Lance's options here? They can't be that engaging, right?
If he proceeds and goes in to arbitration with USADA, then it'll be words against words. But I must say, I am curious to see all the evidence and witnesses they have (that we haven't heard already). Seriously. I want that OUT in the open. For everyones sake.
PS: And this needs to be completely transperant. USADA need to put everything on the table. If the evidence is hard enough, Lance can bring in as much dirty laundry as he wants.. it would just be "ad hominem". The evidence would still be on the table.
Let's get this thing done, people!
The evidence on that table must be relevant and material to the case and admissable by the arbitrators' determination. Rules of evidence not applied.
Even if instructed by Lancie his lawyers would not stoop so low as to ad hominem attacks.
- May 27, 2010
- 6,333
- 3
- 17,485
QuickStepper said:
1. Cannot speak to your thousands of commercial arbitration cases, but this is a sports doping arbitration case.
2. We have a very high profile precedent in a recent sports doping case that was promoted to provide fundamental legal precedents.
3. Those attorneys weren't idiots. They didn't make even a fraction of the mistakes that Armstrong legal parade has committed.
4. Once arbitration began, all of that nonsense about legal precedent went out the window.
Armstrong's lawyers would be idiots, IMHO, to argue base issues in arbitration about things like the applicability of the WADA code. Please remember that it is inconceivable the arbitrators will not have previous experience arbitrating cases under The Code.
You could be right, but precedent is on my side. Not yours.
They have behaved like idiots.
Just like Lance's sociopathic traits, past precedent is good grounds for future actions. If they pull what you are suggesting, they will again behave like idiots. Many of us expect them to continue wasting their client's money.
YMMV
Dave.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 792
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 854
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram