USADA - Armstrong

[Deagol]

True. The US is in a bad place right now on many levels. I don't want to get political, but the moral and ethical middle ground doesn't exist for people with money and power. If you stand up for what is fair, you will be destroyed. It happens all the time. To somebody like Armstrong, teamwork means doing things his way. If it's not done his way, then you're not a team player. The 2009 Tour was a perfect example. There are corrupt people in power all over the US, especially in sports, who manage to convince people that if you don't go along with them, then you're negative, or a hater. I just don't understand how people don't see the reality.

This is true, unfortunately. On a mountain bike forum, the people who want LA to face justice are stupidly labeled as "haters". It's like they subconciously don't want the rules to apply to him, just everybody else.

The lies he repeats so often are believed as the gospel truth. Maybe that's the problem? How much truth is there really in any gospel, anyway? Maybe people are hard-wired to be stupid?

 

[peacefultribe]

Because they want to be able to smear the witnesses without actually proceeding to the hearing phase. Or, smear them publicly while the hearing stays closed (and not have to actually address the
testimony).

This is exactly why I'm shocked that more people don't see what is happening. It is painfully obvious what they are trying to do. I've tried hard to be fair, and see other people's point of view, but it's getting really hard to defend the blind in this case.

 

[WinterRider]

It's not his fault he doesn't know your posting history all that well. It is kind of hard to tell your posting history because you deleted many of your embarrassing earlier posts when you deleted your earlier account.

But anyone who has been reading this site long term (as Krebs claims) would certainly remember the style and substance.

 

[MarkvW]

Because they want to be able to smear the witnesses without actually proceeding to the hearing phase. Or, smear them publicly while the hearing stays closed (and not have to actually address the testimony).

That's not it. Lance is not blabbing about witnesses' names because he wants to actually get the witnesses' names. He knows that he won't get them at this stage and that he will get them at a later stage pursuant to the USADA rules. Then, he'll be able to do all the smearing and extorting that he thinks he can get away with.

This is just a PR pitch to try do demonstrate how unfair the proceedings are.

And it is a stupid PR pitch, at that. Even in a death penalty case, the government doesn't even have to tell the defendant who its witnesses are at the start of the case. The witnesses are divulged in due course.

 

[sniper]

There's still some time left. They usually don't submit these things until the last day/hour. I noticed that when I was reading the Contador ruling some time ago.

correcto

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-attorneys-respond-to-usada-charges

 

[The Gnome]

The CBC article is good but even better are the comments...of course there are some of the usual "I believe Lance 110% and this is a witch hunt ect" crapola but on the whole pretty measured and realistic...compare the comments there to those given after an article say in usa today or huff post where about 90 percent fall into the ridiculous bordering on idiocy category...

 

[veganrob]

Lance is trying to wage his war in the court of public opinion. It has worked pretty good for him in the past.
Times have changed though and people are sick of his BS. But he is desperate. Anyone with the ability to read and comprehend could see his letter really is about a bunch of nothing. He had his chance to get everything he wants when he was called prior. He refused and now wants to play the martyr, albeit a very angry one judging by his wording and tone of his letter. How much do you think it cost Wonderboy for lawyers to write that. Hahhaha.
He is now grasping at straws. The end is near and he knows it.

 

[sniper]

Lance is trying to wage his war in the court of public opinion. It has worked pretty good for him in the past.
Times have changed though and people are sick of his BS. But he is desperate. Anyone with the ability to read and comprehend could see his letter really is about a bunch of nothing. He had his chance to get everything he wants when he was called prior. He refused and now wants to play the martyr, albeit a very angry one judging by his wording and tone of his letter. How much do you think it cost Wonderboy for lawyers to write that. Hahhaha.
He is now grasping at straws. The end is near and he knows it.

But quoting from Landis' book was a clever move.
Luskin seems to have a case claiming USADA violated federal law by offering deals to Landis and co, doesn't he?
Might at least work in the eye of the public and might give Travis Tygart some explaining to do.

 

[veganrob]

But quoting from Landis' book was a clever move.
Luskin seems to have a case claiming USADA violated federal law by offering deals to Landis and co, doesn't he?
Might at least work in the eye of the public and might give Travis Tygart some explaining to do.

Because I haven't read the book, could you explain to me briefly what kind of deal USADA could possibly offer Landis.
Sorry if it has been explained elsewhere

 

[sniper]

Because I haven't read the book, could you explain to me briefly what kind of deal USADA could possibly offer Landis.
Sorry if it has been explained elsewhere

All I read myself is the respective part in Luskin's letter.
USADA offered Landis a reduced suspension so he could ride the tour dfrance.

About this offer, Luskin says it equals bribery:

Offers such as the one provided to Mr. Landis violate
federal law, namely, the federal bribery statute, which provides, in pertinent part:
"Whoever . . . directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to
any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation or to
be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing or other proceeding,
before any court, . . . or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws
of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony . . . shall be fined . . . or
imprisoned for not more than two years, or both."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/lance.html

I'm far from being an expert myself,
and I'd be interested in knowing whether Luskin has a point here or not.

 

[fatsprintking]

Lance is trying to wage his war in the court of public opinion. It has worked pretty good for him in the past.
Times have changed though and people are sick of his BS. But he is desperate. Anyone with the ability to read and comprehend could see his letter really is about a bunch of nothing. He had his chance to get everything he wants when he was called prior. He refused and now wants to play the martyr, albeit a very angry one judging by his wording and tone of his letter. How much do you think it cost Wonderboy for lawyers to write that. Hahhaha.
He is now grasping at straws. The end is near and he knows it.

You are right - he is using the same strategy that has worked in the past, but it is less effective partly because people are getting more clued up about how not to be manipulated by PR strategies.

The whole Tim Dockery article situation plays out like a high school attempt at propaganda pushing and more people seem to be willing to argue the points in various article comment sections.

I think you will start to see people start to modify their their support for Lance now, moving from denial of doping to minimising how important it is etc. Some of this will be self protection for people who dont want to look like idiots when the game is finally up.

 

[BotanyBay]

Lance and his attorneys certainly came out swinging yesterday. Unfortunate for them, there were no pitches to swing at.

Yes, he most certainly is waging the war for the hearts and minds of his fans, as that's all he'll have left when this is done.

He will probably be the world's first doper to actually not lose any endorsement income. Look for Nike to stay classy and make a tv spot (ala Tiger Woods listening to his dead dad) directly addressing the fight.

What am I on? Narcissistic delusion. That's what I'm on.

 

[BotanyBay]

All I read myself is the respective part in Luskin's letter.
USADA offered Landis a reduced suspension so he could ride the tour dfrance.

About this offer, Luskin says it equals bribery:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/lance.html

I'm far from being an expert myself,
and I'd be interested in knowing whether Luskin has a point here or not.

He has no point, as he has no evidence to show that ANYONE has been offered ANYTHING in exchange for ANYTHING.

Let's ask Mr. Papp here. You did some talking to USADA and the FEDS and YOU were a nervous wreck for a good two years about what your future MIGHT be. Did you find Travis to be a bully?

 

[sniper]

He has no point, as he has no evidence to show that ANYONE has been offered ANYTHING in exchange for ANYTHING.

You're right, I now see that Luskin is definitely clutching at straws, which is also pointed out clearly in the excellent "150 watts of awesome" blog that I just read.
http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.de/2012/06/paging-lance-armstrong.html
If I understood correctly, federal law is not gonna play a role in this process.

 

[veganrob]

You're right, I now see that Luskin is definitely clutching at straws, which is also pointed out clearly in the excellent "150 watts of awesome" blog that I just read.
http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.de/2012/06/paging-lance-armstrong.html
If I understood correctly, federal law is not gonna play a role in this process.

Thanks for that. And BB also. That's kind of what I thought.

 

[thehog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/s...could-lose-5-million-if-guilty-of-doping.html

Looks like Lance has to start paying back his victims. First cab off the rank is SCA. They've taken the first step to recovering monies.

--
Jeffrey Tillotson, a lawyer for SCA Promotions, a Dallas-based insurance company, said he sent a letter to Armstrong last week notifying him of the potential financial setback. He said Tim Herman, one of Armstrong’s lawyers, wrote back a defiant letter, refusing to acknowledge that the payback was even a possibility.

“We basically told him that we will be monitoring the case and that we’re going after our money if he is stripped of the title,” Tillotson said. “They responded: ‘Tough bones, it’s not happening. I never cheated.’ It was just the usual Lance: I’m 100 percent right, and you’re 100 percent wrong.”

Herman said Friday that SCA Promotions does not have a case because, “under Texas law, there is no going back on a voluntary settlement.”

“I’m sorry to say that he’s wrong on this one,” Herman said of Tillotson.

 

[BotanyBay]

You're right, I now see that Luskin is definitely clutching at straws, which is also pointed out clearly in the excellent "150 watts of awesome" blog that I just read.
http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.de/2012/06/paging-lance-armstrong.html
If I understood correctly, federal law is not gonna play a role in this process.

Good blog post. And to expand further on the point Lance seems to be making about USADA being a government agency (and his being denied due process), if that were true, then it would effectively make doping in sport 100% legal, as there would be no anti-doping laws to charge Armstrong with.

Being that Stapleton is little more than Lance's mental butler, it means that Lance effectively helped write the process that he is now calling Pontius Pilate.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Looks like SCA is actually back in the game - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-could-lose-5-million-if-guilty-of-doping.html


"Lance Armstrong should be ready to repay a $5 million performance bonus he earned by winning the 2004 Tour de France if the latest doping accusations against him lead to his losing that title, a lawyer for the company that paid that bonus said Friday. Jeffrey Tillotson, a lawyer for SCA Promotions, a Dallas-based insurance company, said he sent a letter to Armstrong last week notifying him of the potential financial setback. He said Tim Herman, one of Armstrong’s lawyers, wrote back a defiant letter, refusing to acknowledge that the payback was even a possibility."

 

[zigmeister]

You're right, I now see that Luskin is definitely clutching at straws, which is also pointed out clearly in the excellent "150 watts of awesome" blog that I just read.
http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.de/2012/06/paging-lance-armstrong.html
If I understood correctly, federal law is not gonna play a role in this process.

Are people finally reading what I've been saying all this time about the USADA, and not making blogs on their own taking credit for this idea?


The USADA is nobody, they are nothing. They have ZERO criminal or civil authority to do anything. In the civil world, I guess they could sue Armstrong, or anybody, for what? No idea. Anybody can sue anybody for anything in a civil court.

But speaking criminally, they are nothing.

This entire process is a complete waste of time, money and resources and has a PRE-DETERMINED outcome already. All under the guise of "federal due process" and federal procedures...blah blah.

Which means nothing. Because they are just some non-profit organization who in cahoots with the UCI, at best, can maybe work to have previous victories Armstrong, possibly removed and render them not valid. Then, ban anybody involved in future events and not provide them a UCI license.

Who cares? Armstrong isn't going to race under UCI ever again. Anybody else involved either doesn't care, has no license, or can just retire with their millions earned, or find other ways to still make a living around cycling. Just not directly involved with UCI affiliation.

No matter how any of the defendants respond, the "hearing/arbitration panel" has already been filled with shills for the USADA and their goals are already set in stone.

 

[BotanyBay]

Herman said Friday that SCA Promotions does not have a case because, “under Texas law, there is no going back on a voluntary settlement.”

“I’m sorry to say that he’s wrong on this one,” Herman said of Tillotson.

Lance and company must have leased the rights to Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field", you know, the one where despite everyone around you telling you you're wrong, you still insist you're correct.

 

[BillytheKid]

You're right, I now see that Luskin is definitely clutching at straws, which is also pointed out clearly in the excellent "150 watts of awesome" blog that I just read.
http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.de/2012/06/paging-lance-armstrong.html
If I understood correctly, federal law is not gonna play a role in this process.

I would hope you would hope that federal law governs everything, but I think your just trying to say Amsrtrong will not end up in a federal court against the USADA. That we can't know at this time. Certainly he has the right to appeal to a seperate court. That court can say yea or nay. And then he appeals up the line.

Of course the fundemental point Armstorng does have to date..is what is the evidence the ruling is based on? I so am glad cyclingnews has a "unamed source close to investigation" (back in the day when I was in J School, the unamed source was drill into me as a no, no. A huge red flag, but it has become a common tactic of both prosecution and defense to leak information to influence things in the public arena, the concept of ethics in this regard...has long flown way).

If the USADA has other information that is the bases of its ruling. It, in a democracy, has to be made public knowledge. Trial by night is a medevil concept, but we seem to be slipping fast.

You have the rigth to face your accusers. False charges are levied at people all the time. The USADA may not see it that way, but another court, at least in a time apart of the medevil, hopefully, will.

One would think I am whole heartily in the Armstrong camp, but I am actually want to see want evidence does exist. Without it we have a lynch mob. My thought is that USADA is attempting to proceed to protect the "eye-witnesses" form the same ruling given to Amrstrong which could be a problem for them and as we've see now Armstrong's lawyer have made a move publicly to expose it.

It ain't over till it's over.

 

[BotanyBay]

No matter how any of the defendants respond, the "hearing/arbitration panel" has already been filled with shills for the USADA and their goals are already set in stone.

Precisely the way that Lance and his legal butler (Stapleton) designed it back when they successfully inserted themselves into the creation process. If making an anti-doping process, who better to invite than the latest miricle in modern clean racing, Lance Armstrong, right?

And Lance responded by sending his right-hand pelota.

 

[mastersracer]

Can anyone comment on these procedural points:

1. Can witness testimony from the federal investigation be used in the USADA case? Is it supposed to be sealed? What constitutes violation of rule 6c Luskin alleges? Is it only information Novitsky made public?

2. Tygart participated in witness interviews with Novitsky during the federal investigation. Can Tygart use what he learned during those interviews in a USADA case? Tygart states that the USADA case is built on its own investigation, but presumably there is something new that has induced witnesses to testify, and it appears to be the information Tygart gained during the federal investigation testimony. Is this overlap OK?

3. Does USADA have code provisions that allow them to offer reduced suspensions in exchange for testimony?

 

[BotanyBay]

There came a point where everyone agreed there needed to be a process. Stakeholders such as Lance were invited to CREATE the process.

What Lance is doing is akin to Thomas Jefferson saying that the US Constitution (itself) is unconstitutional. That's how absurd his arguments are rigt now!

 

[BotanyBay]

Can anyone comment on these procedural points:

1. Can witness testimony from the federal investigation be used in the USADA case? Is it supposed to be sealed? What constitutes violation of rule 6c Luskin alleges? Is it only information Novitsky made public?

2. Tygart participated in witness interviews with Novitsky during the federal investigation. Can Tygart use what he learned during those interviews in a USADA case? Tygart states that the USADA case is built on its own investigation, but presumably there is something new that has induced witnesses to testify, and it appears to be the information Tygart gained during the federal investigation testimony. Is this overlap OK?

3. Does USADA have code provisions that allow them to offer reduced suspensions in exchange for testimony?

An article yesterday stated that USADA did not get any evidence from the Feds (yet), but they have asked for it. Anyone know which article? NY Times? WSJ?