USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

Game on. I'm in.

Travis for President.

Eloquent. Intelligent. Persistent.

I like our odds.

I think Lance will throw in the towel and lose.

Travis wins!

 

[ElChingon]

Even a scumbag like Papp managed to avoid prison, but pretty much count on Landis getting shafted. Prosecution is probably being driven by Armstrong homers.

Well, I would suspect that the jails being so full and these guys are not such a threat as those who are in jail or are much more of a threat to society that house arrest would continue for anyone else on this list coming up if anything, maybe halfway house or Work Furlow (which is also BS). These crimes and the ones of the criminals IN jail are quite a different order of magnitude. Not that I like it but welcome to the USA criminal service or what ever its called.

 

[MarkvW]

Game on. I'm in.

Travis for President.

Eloquent. Intelligent. Persistent.

I like our odds.

Travis to replace Pat Heine at the UCI!!

 

[Berzin]

So is Landis being charged for something by the Feds?

No one has posted a link to this, but it seems to be a talking point here in this thread the last couple of pages.

 

[Turner29]

The issue I'm struggling with is the USADA sanctioning prior to 2004. I can see that they can bring the evidence in, courtesy of Hellebuyk and also - what was the expression you used? - setting the frame (??), so I don't see an SOL issue per se BUT I'm not sure about titles being stripped pre the WADA code being adopted. Some here have said it can happen but I've not been convinced, so I wouldn't be surprised if Armstrong's team addressed that issue (would you call it scope?).

As it happens, I'm not concerned about titles being stripped or otherwise. I'd be content to see a lifetime ban and the evidence being in the public arena, but that's another issue.

I have no trouble if all tour titles are stripped, provided evidence exists of doping for each year. While statute of limitations are meant to prevent undo legal "persecution," when a criminal actively takes measures to cover crimes, statute of limitations no longer apply -- a very sound legal concept.

 

[TubularBills]

So is Landis being charged for something by the Feds?

No one has posted a link to this, but it seems to be a talking point here in this thread the last couple of pages.

It's all just speculation and weathering the interim evening before the storm.

RR hinted at something malevolent and the posse jumped on it.

 

[JA.Tri]

The idea of Floyd facing criminal charges rankles!

The idea of LA being served in aforementioned case...interesting!

LA being declared "hostile witness" appeals!

LA dodging questions at cross....entertaining!

LA committing (and so found) perjury...icing on the cake!!!


Credit: Runitout

 

[MarkvW]

The idea of Floyd facing criminal charges rankles!

The idea of LA being served in aforementioned case...interesting!

LA being declared "hostile witness" appeals!

LA dodging questions at cross....entertaining!

LA committing (and so found) perjury...icing on the cake!!!


Credit: Runitout

I forgot about Lance's perjury problem! He can't very well defend himself in the USADA proceedings without testifying. If he doesn't testify, USADA would call him. If he denies specific incidents testified to by multiple other people, then he is really risking a perjury prosecution. If he refuses to answer because his answer might incriminate him, then that refusal to answer gets used against him (because the arbitration is a civil proceeding).

The only kind of challenge that would make sense for Lance would be a challenge that tries to preserve the "old" TdF wins and does not contest the new stuff.

 

[sittingbison]

...The only kind of challenge that would make sense for Lance would be a challenge that tries to preserve the "old" TdF wins and does not contest the new stuff.

forgetting for one moment he is a sociopath and could not for one second allow any attack to his legacy, I see:
1) the general public being shocked at finding Lance doped for wins 6 and 7
2) the general public would then presume 1-5 are also due to doping because they are not stupid
3) Lance is finished with sponsors once the general public turn against him
4) At this point even the fanboys start to jump ship

Although the general public could well has the subconscious view of "he might have doped, look at all those others who got caught?", to be actually found guilty, exposed and stripped of titles is a different kettle of fish. And the general public while slow to anger will not be forgiving at being deceived, and if it is systematic team based doping in a conspiracy, they will bay for his blood. Especially because of the Livestrong cancer angle, what was meant to protect him will destroy him. Nobody likes being taken for a mug.

His very real problem is he is screwed with the slightest chingck in his armour. He really is all in, its all or nothing.

Now going back to the sociopath position...

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

We are approaching post number 10.000 in the next few days.
Can i kindly ask the mods or Mr. Benson what the member who posts the 10.000th comment is awarded with?

The pride of knowing that he or she is the one who posted the 10,000th comment....

Susan

 

[silverrocket]

Only post-84 blood-packing scandal did the entire mindset change, and still, people generally didn't believe that cyclists were taking 'roids in the USA until Kenny Carpenter (match sprinter) bailed on his drug test in San Diego that one year when the national track team was training at the SD velodrome.

Wow, I had actually forgotten about this old term until I read your post. Thanks!

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

No further discussion of politics, Attorney Generals or the DOJ -- at the moment all irrelevant to this thread.

Thank you.

Susan

 

[Velodude]

No further discussion of politics, Attorney Generals or the DOJ -- at the moment all irrelevant to this thread.

Thank you.

Susan

Physician heal thyself

The plural of Attorney General is Attorneys General.

Your welcome

 

[QuickStepper]

I can't remember who this is in reply to… but it's related to the due process issue and the notice period of evidence once it is in arbitration.

Judge Sparks appears to enjoy making incendiary comments and maintaining the appearance of impartiality by throwing a bone to each participant.

But notwithstanding all his speculative remarks, he clearly spells out his expectations regarding due process and evidence. On page 18 of his Order, he says: "AAA rules are sufficiently robust…", and in the footnote he writes: "The Court does not rely solely on counsel's assurances, however. The Supplementary Procedures to the USADA Protocol contain two provisions which suggest Armstrong is likely to receive adequate notice of the specific allegations and evidence against him prior to any substantive hearing. …Rule R-18, governing the exchange of information between the parties, not only requires the parties to exchange all exhibits they intend to submit at the merits hearing five days in advance, but also allows the arbitrators to order 'production of documents and other information', including lists of anticipated witnesses."

It is interesting that Sparks wrote that, because five days notice would almost sound like a rebuke of Armstrong, in the context of his claims. But that would be the minimum time period, and the arbitrators are allowed to set the schedule. USADA may not be inclined to play hardball, but they might press the point when it comes to the witness list, if harassment of the witnesses is an issue.

Nice take on this. In my view though, the arbitrators will, if they allow the matter to proceed as a consolidated case involving the other five "defendants", allow more than the minimum 5 days. In a case that has this many players and the number of witnesses that USADA says they intend to call (and 10-12 percipient witnesses is a lot in any case, because you can anticipate with direct and cross, given the subject matter, that each witness is going to take at least 1 and possible 2 or more days), I think it's almost inconceivable that the arbitrators will insist on the minimum notice period

One thing to keep in mind is that the AAA Supplemental Procedures for Anti-Doping Cases (which are the Commercial Rules with some minor exceptions) also anticipate that an anti-doping case might involve an athelete who has tested positive in competition and who also has events upcoming, and thus the rules throughout talk about expediting the proceedings so they can be resolved promptly and without delay if the athlete so desires such a prompt resolution. I think the main focus is thus on the aim of the athlete and the minimum timing can, and often is extended, when an expedited ruling isn't necessary.

The more interesting question, at least to me, is whether they will allow Armstrong to take the depositions of the USADA witnesses before they testify at the hearing. I think that's probably more likely than not. In cases I've been involved in, the arbitrators have invoke their inherent power as set forth in Rule-18 (a) to allow for depositions as part of their power to "direct. . . the production of documents and other information. . . " As a general proposition, the arbitrators aren't going to want Armstrong's counsel to use the arbitration hearings as a substitute for depositions of the witnesses. Indeed, that's the very purpose of pre-trial deposition discovery, i.e., to allow for cross-examination of potential witnesses in advance of the hearing to be able to narrow the issues, avoid wasting the court's time and to focus the testimony and cross to only the most relevant topics. Yet without the abillity of either side here to take such pre-hearing depositions, that's exactly what might occur. I think USADA doesn't care about deposing any of Armstrong's witnesses, but they might, whereas there's no doubt that Armstrong would love to depose those persons identified by USADA.

USADA too might want to depose Armstrong's witnesses, to the extent they are different than the 10-12 intended to be offered by USADA. In fact, if I were in Armstong's attorney's shoes, I'd offer the testimony of every single one of his former teammates, former trainers, former team doctors, and anyone else i could find who would testify that Armstrong didn't dope and didn't possess or traffic. I have no idea if he can find anyone willing to so testify but if everyone's speculation here about the strength of "omerta" is even halfway accurate, there may be a number of people willing to support him in this proceeding.


One other observation: I am still sort of puzzled by the comments concerning witness intimidation at this rather late stage of the USADA charges. I've seen several posts here which criticized Armstrong's actions in prior litigation, in which it was claimed that he had engaged in "witness intimidation" simply by attending the deposition of, for example, Betsy Andreu, in the SCA matter. I've not read the transcripts of her deposition, nor have I seen any video (nor am I aware whether her depo was taped), but it's pretty fundamental that any party litigant has the right to be present and attend any proceedings, including the depositions of any witness in a case. Glaring at a witness can be personally intimidating, but the reality is that often that's just a subjective perception of the person being deposed. In any event, I think it's also clear that USADA has said several times that the primary reason they don't want to release their witness names is because they are concerned about this "intimidation" so they obvioiusly share the concern, even if they won't fully describe what intimidation in particular they are concerned about. I don't recall anywhere in their briefs in the federal case where they actually described the feared witness intimidation in any detail, so in that sense because they were vague about it, I think it came across as somewhat gamey and pretextual to Judge Sparks, thus drawing some of his ire.

I think Judge Sparks' due process notice concern had a lot to do with not only the timing on the release of the names and details of the charges, but whether USADA was acting in a manner that would be contrary to all notions of due process by refusing to identify at the earliest opportunity the names of the witnesses who will testify in support of the charges. Of course, USADA isn't doing anything fundamentally wrong by withholding that information at this point under the AAA Rules, because they aren't required to give that information at this time. Were the matter in federal court, there would be an "early meeting" of counsel under Rule 26, and at least to me, it's clear that Judge Sparks, in describing due process, is relating to the standards for disclosure contained in that rule when he writes about the due process concerns.

For those not familiar with Rule 26, it's very clear that everyone in litigation has an obligation--at the risk of sanctions later for failure to comply-- to disclose all documents and the names of witnesses as soon as possible, and without waiting to receive any discovery request from the other side. See, http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26.

But I do agree with your general take on this and I think USADA isn't going to turn over the names of witnesses unless and until the arbitrators require it to do so consistent with the requirements of Rule-18 pursuant to a schedule that will be set by the arbitrators and which will, in my view, require more than the minimum of 5 days notice.

 

[Cavalier]

Man, it's almost like you guys have been told repeatedly not to discuss the legal in here, and use the other thread.

Seriously, stop ****ting up the thread, it's highly annoying to dilute.

 

[Animal]

Physician heal thyself

The plural of Attorney General is Attorneys General.

Your welcome

You don't get this pedantry thing do you?

You're welcome.

 

[sittingbison]

...I am still sort of puzzled by the comments concerning witness intimidation at this stage of the game...

yup, you clearly have not kept up to speed with Lance and his cronies intimidating witnesses. It has been discussed at length around 7500 posts ago when this thread was still largely about Lance vs USADA. Well worth a read.

 

[QuickStepper]

yup, you clearly have not kept up to speed with Lance and his cronies intimidating witnesses. It has been discussed at length around 7500 posts ago when this thread was still largely about Lance vs USADA. Well worth a read.

No, I read those posts and the problem, at least conceptually that I have is that whatever actual or perceived intimidation may have occurred has already long ago taken place, and other than the incident with Tyler in the hallway of a restaurant sometime about a year ago (which involved only verbal comments, distasteful and stupid though they were), I am not aware of any more recent efforts to dissaude any witness from testifying against him. I guess if guys like Zabriskie or Leipheimer or others who are still involved activley in racing and marketing products can be adversely affected if, for example, Nike decides to do "something", well, that might be of concern. But most of the people who I think we all anticipate will testify against him are already excommunicated from whatever inner-circle or influence he has. In other words, whatever damage he could have previously inflicted has probably already been inflicted. I also think Armstrong's continued influence in the sport other than with the few sponsors who still appear to be loyal to him, are probably grossly overrated at this point, and his ability to inflict punitive action on those who dare to cross him are probably pretty limited.

 

[Morbius]

Thanks Quickstepper, nice to have some legal basis to all the speculation

 

[QuickStepper]

Man, it's almost like you guys have been told repeatedly not to discuss the legal in here, and use the other thread.

Seriously, stop ****ting up the thread, it's highly annoying to dilute.

Sorry to disappoint you Cavalier, but you really should read Susan Westemeyer's posts from last night on this same subject. There's no restriction about posting legal information in this thread, so long as it's on-topic and relates to the USADA vs. Armstrong case.

If you don't like it, learn how to use the ignore function.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Now that all his enemies/people who take offense to an abrasive jerk can smell that the end is in sight for Lance his power to intimidate witnesses is surely diminishing greatly.

He can try his Strong arm tactics all he wants but really his status as the most marketable, well connected cyclist is what can hurt cyclists, something that's not going to last for much longer.

His best witness influence now is probably 'desperate man' defence, Pat obviously hasn't been looking out for a mate but seemingly operating an understanding that if Lance goes down he'll take Pat with him.

 

[the big ring]

His best witness influence now is probably 'desperate man' defence, Pat obviously hasn't been looking out for a mate but seemingly operating an understanding that if Lance goes down he'll take Pat with him.

Anyone heard from Pat lately? Last UCI release I saw was from a spokesperson.

 

[Benotti69]

No, I read those posts and the problem, at least conceptually that I have is that whatever actual or perceived intimidation may have occurred has already long ago taken place, and other than the incident with Tyler in the hallway of a restaurant sometime about a year ago (which involved only verbal comments, distasteful and stupid though they were), I am not aware of any more recent efforts to dissaude any witness from testifying against him. I guess if guys like Zabriskie or Leipheimer or others who are still involved activley in racing and marketing products can be adversely affected if, for example, Nike decides to do "something", well, that might be of concern. But most of the people who I think we all anticipate will testify against him are already excommunicated from whatever inner-circle or influence he has. In other words, whatever damage he could have previously inflicted has probably already been inflicted. I also think Armstrong's continued influence in the sport other than with the few sponsors who still appear to be loyal to him, are probably grossly overrated at this point, and his ability to inflict punitive action on those who dare to cross him are probably pretty limited.

Vaughter's and Frankie Andreu have both discussed Armstrong and his abilities on the intimidation front.

There is a thread in here about all the companies that Amrstrong has links with. It is extensive. There are a myiad of ways to 'mess' with people.

Andreu has had no luck in becoming involved in cycling after his career due to the pressure from Armstrong.

USADA seem to think that releasing the witness names would lead to intimidation. Sparks did not disagree.

 

[thehog]

Man, it's almost like you guys have been told repeatedly not to discuss the legal in here, and use the other thread.

Seriously, stop ****ting up the thread, it's highly annoying to dilute.

I agree. Susan?

 

[sittingbison]

...I also think Armstrong's continued influence in the sport other than with the few sponsors who still appear to be loyal to him, are probably grossly overrated at this point, and his ability to inflict punitive action on those who dare to cross him are probably pretty limited.

except for the fact it was only last week that Fat Pat wrote those drunken letters threatening any witnesses that had dealt with USADA and been given leniency if they were involved in doping would feel the full force of UCI fury.

He then very publicly specifically queried why certain riders were competing in the Tour de France. So that would be....Levi, Hincapie, Zabriskie and Horner? I bet they felt just tickety boo.