USADA - Armstrong

[Anonymous]

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.

Lance does.

 

[BillytheKid]

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?

These are all great questions. On number one, there could be the basis of misuse of the Federal Grand Jury becasue a GJ's sole purpose is to hand down indictment(s) in a federal case and not be the agent of another investigation. Of course, that would have to be brought before a court in process outside the USADA.

 

[BotanyBay]

Lance knows he has nothing to contest in federal court yet, as the USADA process has not yet run its course. Look for him to sue USADA after they skewer him and take away his fraudulent accomplishments.

 

[BillytheKid]

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.

You have to admit, Hog, that this is reaching the stage of a full scale war.

 

[thehog]

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."

Thanks Cal_Joe. Excellent post.

Looks like this is the first step in recovering the fraudulently obtained monies. First send request letter then follow up with law suit later.

I guess the $7.5m question is the in the following statement:

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

 

[thehog]

You have to admit, Hog, that this is reaching the stage of a full scale war.

Not really. There's a good 10 years of victims who see blood. Armstrong doesn't have the money to defend and fight them all. A skilled man would pick and choose his battles. Problem Armstrong has is he tries to fight everyone in a fist fight in the town square for all to see.

He at times has one hand tied behind his back and he's still trying to pretend he didn't dope. That will eventually catch up with him and it will all come tumbling down.

I do agree with you though. The wolves smell blood and they're circling him.

 

[rata de sentina]

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.

Iḿ not shocked, these are the same people who reply to Nigerian emails.

 

[Anonymous]

Lance knows he has nothing to contest in federal court yet, as the USADA process has not yet run its course. Look for him to sue USADA after they skewer him and take away his fraudulent accomplishments.

I kind of hope he takes Herman and Luskin's advice and does this very thing.

It would be just and fitting for his wealth to be transferred to his attorneys.

Plus, at some point, he'll be on the stand and cross examined. I would pay to see how that unfolds.

 

[goober]

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!

Are you OK? Lots of posts this morning - go have a coffee . These are Lance's lawyers. This is going to get interesting if USADA moves forward. And, some of the arguments are not absurd. Myself I think Tygart is in a bit of trouble...

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks Cal_Joe. Excellent post.

Looks like this is the first step in recovering the fraudulently obtained monies. First send request letter then follow up with law suit later.

I guess the $7.5m question is the in the following statement:

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 guessing, even in Texas, if fraud is involved in the procurement of a settlement, voluntary or not, there will be consequences.

I could be wrong...

 

[goober]

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?

Feds did not supply USADA with any evidence.

 

[Anonymous]

Are you OK? Lots of posts this morning - go have a coffee . These are Lance's lawyers. This is going to get interesting if USADA moves forward. And, some of the arguments are not absurd. Myself I think Tygart is in a bit of trouble...

Oh I am dying to know how you came to this conclusion.

 

[goober]

Oh I am dying to know how you came to this conclusion.

All I can say are my comments are based on what I know; sometimes what I think I know . They are not pro or anti Lance quibbles. Completely objective.

 

[thehog]

I'm guessing, even in Texas, if fraud is involved in the procurement of a settlement, voluntary or not, there will be consequences.

I could be wrong...

I tend to agree. The only reason they settled was because the hearing was stacked. Along with the fact the original payment of 5m was based upon number of wins. If those wins are stripped then he needs to pay back the original 5m. The 2.5m in costs will probably need to follow. I cannot see a court allowing Armstrong to keep the money. Henman could argue the settlement is binding but once its found Armstrong lied to the arbitration no judge is going to uphold the original agreement.

 

[Merckx index]

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?

This really does need clarification. Some of the articles on this case have said USADA did use the testimony, others have quoted Tygart saying they didn’t (and implying that indeed they weren’t allowed to). One thing they could have done, though, is deposed cyclists they thought talked to the GJ, and asked them questions they knew the GJ would have asked. Under those conditions, they could be sure the cyclists’ answers were truthful. I really don’t see why, if they knew who the key cyclists were, they would need GJ testimony.

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

My understanding is they do, though only one year, I thought. But what I didn’t understand was yesterday’s letter accusing them of bribery. The passage they quoted indicating it was a federal crime I assume applies to laymen, not people representing the law. If not, that statute would rule out any kind of immunity from prosecution deal. It’s hardly coercion to tell someone who could be prosecuted that if he helps investigators go after bigger fish he will get a better deal from the law.

I’m surprised no one here has commented on another implication of the quote from Landis’ book. That pretty much destroys Floyd’s credibility, doesn’t it? I mean, he says there he never saw LA dope or has any evidence that he did.

 

[goober]

I tend to agree. The only reason they settled was because the hearing was stacked. Along with the fact the original payment of 5m was based upon number of wins. If those wins are stripped then he needs to pay back the original 5m. The 2.5m in costs will probably need to follow. I cannot see a court allowing Armstrong to keep the money. Henman could argue the settlement is binding but once its found Armstrong lied to the arbitration no judge is going to uphold the original agreement.

A USADA finding against Lance will not indicate Armstrong lied to a court. But, more could follow... What a mess .

 

[SpeedWay]

But speaking criminally, they are nothing.

I would think those on the pointy end of the BALCO case would disagree with you. You are correct in implying the USADA is not a "state actor" and therefore has no authority to enforce statutory laws of the United States. But to water down their gravitas in such matters, as you are doing in your post, is akin to missing the face with the palm. Just the fact that they are under no discovery obligations under the Jencks Act could cause a myriad can of worms to be opened up which over time could cause a very unpleasant stench to stick to the defendant(s).

 

[rata de sentina]

It´s really good to see that most people are restraining the urge to respond to troll posts. I myself just drafted a whole diatribe which I thought was rather good but upon reflection I realised that it was better to delete it even though I had fun writing it. You should take a leaf out of my book BotanyBay.

 

[thehog]

I’m surprised no one here has commented on another implication of the quote from Landis’ book. That pretty much destroys Floyd’s credibility, doesn’t it? I mean, he says there he never saw LA dope or has any evidence that he did.

That's a little silly don't you think? He has already denounced the book. I think even Floyd would admit his credibility has been destroyed long ago. That doesn't change the fact he is now telling the truth.

Credibility is also not a point of law. You don't base your defence on credibility.

If anything it could be argued that Lands was "protecting" Armstrong by making those statements. That would go a long way to proving the point that Armstrong did indeed dope and it required compliance from all those around him.

You also could turn it around and state the same. Armstrong has printed the same statements in his books.

 

[sniper]

(...)
I’m surprised no one here has commented on another implication of the quote from Landis’ book. That pretty much destroys Floyd’s credibility, doesn’t it? I mean, he says there he never saw LA dope or has any evidence that he did.

The book was written prior to Landis' doping confession.
So I assume what he wrote in that book will not be held against him in the court of law, also considering that he has 9 other testimonies backing up his allegations.

 

[rata de sentina]

This really does need clarification.

Not really, it is enough knowing that the witnesses spoke to the GJ presumably under oath. They are hardly likely to say anything different when subsequently interviewed by USADA are they, Knowing that their evidence was on the record and not knowing what the eventual outcome of the GJ was going to be. Surprisingly there are some subtle people in seppo land, implicit works just as good as explicit in these situations.

 

[thehog]

Not really, it is enough knowing that the witnesses spoke to the GJ presumably under oath. They are hardly likely to say anything different when subsequently interviewed by USADA are they, Knowing that their evidence was on the record and not knowing what the eventual outcome of the GJ was going to be. Surprisingly there are some subtle people in seppo land, implicit works just as good as explicit in these situations.

It would be a sad if the entire case was based on Positively False!

 

[sniper]

It would be a sad if the entire case was based on Positively False!

..............

 

[rata de sentina]

Credibility is also not a point of law. You don't base your defence on credibility.

Well in a way you do but in a more specific way. Is the witnesses testimony credible is the main issue. How many mafia bosses have been convicted on the basis of a turncoats testimony? - heaps The argument that Floyd et al are not credible witnesses is a complete crock. People convicted of much more serious crimes than doping have been deemed to be credible witnesses in the past. This credibility issue smacks to me as clutching at straws but unfortunately the credulous, the gullible and the cynical keep repeating it on forums.

 

[Merckx index]

You don't base your defence on credibility

Of course you do. Which is why you and the rest of us here were so glad when it was revealed that George had testified. And even happier to learn that a total of more than ten ex-teammates had testified. We all understand that a case based on just Floyd, or Floyd and Tyler, would be nowhere near as strong as one based on more credible witnesses.

This case rests entirely on witnesses--unless the expert panel really flubbed or were bought off on the blood values--and that makes credibility crucial.

it is enough knowing that the witnesses spoke to the GJ presumably under oath. They are hardly likely to say anything different when subsequently interviewed by USADA are they

Thanks for repeating what I said! If it makes it easier for you to understand by putting it in your own words, go for it.