USADA - Armstrong

[Kennf1]

Interesting article from 2008 co-authored by Tygart that discusses a lot of these topics, mostly in the context of BALCO/Marion Jones. Back then, Jones referred to USADA as a "kangaroo court," devoid of proper due process. (Not sure why the link address is ridiculously long).

http://scholarship.law.marquette.ed..."federal lawsuits against usada marion jones"

 

[mastersracer]

You missing the point. If you're going to take to Federal or State court you need to be able to show that a Federal or State law has been impinged upon. Otherwise they don't want to know.

But lets go with this shall we.

Say he does take it to Federal Court. Armstrong would have to show evidence that the witnesses indeed were coerced and gave false testimony under duress. How is he going to do that when all of the witness happily gave their testamoney? How in God's name would you go proving that one? I like to see a Federal Court rule that witness testimony is open for undue influence and thus not valid. That would set some precedent for the future!

Armstrong's going no where near Federal court. He's not going to open himself up false claims at that level. He'll be counter sued until the cows come out and prosecuted for wilful damage and witness intimidation. Not happening.

I would add: Nothing would surprise me in regards to Armstrong. He is stupid enough to get himself arrested for doing as much.

The charge is more specific than simply plea bargaining. Luskin referenced the federal bribery statute. In the case of Landis, they are suggesting USADA was willing to give him a reduced suspension and time it so that he could ride the 2007 Tour. That would be providing something of value as an inducement to offer testimony. Luskin also alludes to concealing admissions and timing sanctions as violating USADA code.

So, suppose LL, DZ, GH, and CVV have made admissions of doping. Can USADA conceal this? Is allowing them all to ride the 2012 Tour an inducement especially if they are going to time their suspension for the fall? GH will have ridden the most Tours ever if he ride the 2012 Tour - what is the financial value of that? Is that inducing a witness with something of value?

 

[MarkvW]

Exactly. The "stick" for USADA was the threat of contradicting prior sworn testimony in the criminal investigation, and a possible perjury charge. Luskin is trying to claim the witnesses were coerced by USADA with threats of sanctions and "rewarded" with reduced bans. A more likely scenario is the witnesses were "coerced" by their own prior testimony in the federal grand jury.

It remains unlikely that USADA obtained any GJ information. That is definitely misinformation spread by Armstrong's camp. All signs indicate that they got their own information.

 

[thehog]

The charge is more specific than simply plea bargaining. Luskin referenced the federal bribery statute. In the case of Landis, they are suggesting USADA was willing to give him a reduced suspension and time it so that he could ride the 2007 Tour. That would be providing something of value as an inducement to offer testimony. Luskin also alludes to concealing admissions and timing sanctions as violating USADA code.

So, suppose LL, DZ, GH, and CVV have made admissions of doping. Can USADA conceal this? Is allowing them all to ride the 2012 Tour an inducement especially if they are going to time their suspension for the fall? GH will have ridden the most Tours ever if he ride the 2012 Tour - what is the financial value of that? Is that inducing a witness with something of value?

Landis may not be one of the witnesses.

The others are different because if they said nothing then they would not face any form of doping sanction nor would they be under investigation. They could choose to say nothing or "not remember". USADA had no evidence of their doping other than Landis's statement in his original letter. So if you were CVV you could say nothing and keep on riding. By testifying he brought risk upon himself. Risk of sanction and risk of intimidation.

Thus if their statements were provided under the assurance that their own liabilities were reduce so they could speak freely. That's a long way from being "coerced" or forced under duress to provide false testimony.

You'd still have a hard time proving that they made up the allegations against Armstrong. They could have said nothing and not received any sanction and saved themselves the hassle.

 

[Maxiton]

I believe the minimum sentence is actually 6 months, and I wouldn't be surprised if all of those guys have their suspensions announced fairly soon...like, right after the TDF. I have to wonder if that wasn't a motivating factor for them removing themselves from Olympic consideration.

Also, since they're active witnesses it wouldn't surprise me if action isn't started against them until LA's trial is completed (but before the CAS appeal). I would imagine that USADA will gerrymander the suspension in a way that it impacts the riders the least amount, as a consideration to them for their cooperation. Personally, I think 1 year is reasonable. You have to give them consideration for cooperating, but they shouldn't just walk, either.

I don't really see what leverage these guys have. They testified for the GJ. Then, they supposedly give sworn testimony to the USADA. If that's the case, and the stories don't match, then they're looking at perjury charges, and visions of Marion Jones start dancing in their collective heads. So, they pretty much HAD to have consistent testimony. At least that's the way I see it. So, USADA really already had built-in leverage against these guys. A reduced suspension really just seems like a courtesy more than a necessity.

Agree completely, on both points.

Let's stop kidding ourselves. They ALREADY KNOW the identity of the witnesses. They've known for a long time, though the Olympic withdrawal probably sealed the deal on Hincapie. Probably shouldn't have chased down George when he was in the virtual yellow... Hell, most people on here know their identity. It's not really a secret. You just assume everyone who's in the know flipped.

I'm also sure that they're exerting whatever backdoor pressure they think they can get away with on those guys. Unfortunately for Bruyneel, LA and Co, they just don't have much juice in cycling anymore. Cycling has moved on.

They still have contacts in the UCI and in the peloton. I wouldn't be surprised to see certain testing samples sent off for extra scrutiny during the Tour. Those guys should be very careful. About everything.

Interesting article from 2008 co-authored by Tygart that discusses a lot of these topics, mostly in the context of BALCO/Marion Jones. Back then, Jones referred to USADA as a "kangaroo court," devoid of proper due process. (Not sure why the link address is ridiculously long).

http://scholarship.law.marquette.ed..."federal lawsuits against usada marion jones"

They always blame the poor kangaroos.

 

[Kennf1]

It remains unlikely that USADA obtained any GJ information. That is definitely misinformation spread by Armstrong's camp. All signs indicate that they got their own information.

Agreed. But the riders would not necessarily have that assurance when they gave statements to USADA.

 

[131313]

The charge is more specific than simply plea bargaining. Luskin referenced the federal bribery statute. In the case of Landis, they are suggesting USADA was willing to give him a reduced suspension and time it so that he could ride the 2007 Tour. That would be providing something of value as an inducement to offer testimony.

And as proof of this charge, they're going to provide testimony of whom, exactly? Landis? "your honor, Landis is lying about seeing me dope, but he's not lying in this instance". Good luck with that one! Half of their case is attacking his credibility, the other half is relying on his statements as "proof" of coercion. I hope for LA's sake they have a Plan B lined up.

Luskin also alludes to concealing admissions and timing sanctions as violating USADA code.

So, suppose LL, DZ, GH, and CVV have made admissions of doping. Can USADA conceal this? Is allowing them all to ride the 2012 Tour an inducement especially if they are going to time their suspension for the fall? GH will have ridden the most Tours ever if he ride the 2012 Tour - what is the financial value of that? Is that inducing a witness with something of value?

As per USADA's own rules, they can offer consideration for cooperating witnesses. You could attach value to a shortened suspension, but this is well within their clearly-stated rules. Is this "unconstitutional"? Well, this is something they'll probably try to argue; but that's going to be an uphill road. Marion Jones and Tim Montgomery already tried this tact and failed. So, there's already precedent.

As far as the timeline, they can proceed with action against those guys whenever they see fit. There's nothing in their bylaws (or the constitution!) about a right to a speedy charge...

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting pretty tired of Pharmstrong's continual public defensive statements like the latest "USADA broke the rules/laws". If we get done with "pin the tail on the donkey" and he is proven guilty, I won't forget all this posturing.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I believe the minimum sentence is actually 6 months, and I wouldn't be surprised if all of those guys have their suspensions announced fairly soon...like, right after the TDF. I have to wonder if that wasn't a motivating factor for them removing themselves from Olympic consideration.

Also, since they're active witnesses it wouldn't surprise me if action isn't started against them until LA's trial is completed (but before the CAS appeal). I would imagine that USADA will gerrymander the suspension in a way that it impacts the riders the least amount, as a consideration to them for their cooperation. Personally, I think 1 year is reasonable. You have to give them consideration for cooperating, but they shouldn't just walk, either.

I don't really see what leverage these guys have. They testified for the GJ. Then, they supposedly give sworn testimony to the USADA. If that's the case, and the stories don't match, then they're looking at perjury charges, and visions of Marion Jones start dancing in their collective heads. So, they pretty much HAD to have consistent testimony. At least that's the way I see it. So, USADA really already had built-in leverage against these guys. A reduced suspension really just seems like a courtesy more than a necessity.

This post strikes clarity with me.
If you look at the timing of George's retirement announcement in conjunction with the bowing out of Olympic consideration and etc...it really does make a lot of sense.

It will be interesting to see ....

and thanx for the good post

 

[mewmewmew13]

"Score"? Against f*cking what? That's the first f*cking word I've said to you. You f*cking idiot.

...and good one

 

[131313]

It remains unlikely that USADA obtained any GJ information. That is definitely misinformation spread by Armstrong's camp. All signs indicate that they got their own information.

Agreed, but look at it from the perspective of the guys testifying. You've testified to the feds. You're afraid to lie to the, because you're not going to jail for Lance. Then, you testify to the USADA. You don't really care about lying to them. But, if your sworn testimony seems fishy or contradictory to what they even *think* they said to the feds, the USADA can request the GJ testimony from the feds. And giving false testimony under oath can land you in jail. Hard to prove you weren't lying in one of those depositions...

Are you willing to bet the next 5 years that they aren't going to give it up? I'm not! So, even if it's just "perceived leverage", it's still massive leverage.

 

[thehog]

Don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting pretty tired of Pharmstrong's continual public defensive statements like the latest "USADA broke the rules/laws". If we get done with "pin the tail on the donkey" and he is proven guilty, I won't forget all this posturing.

Be even more funny when the final verdict is delivered and statements from several cyclists on his team(s) admit to what they did and saw.

How to spin that one? All bitter? Didn't happen. That's going to be hard.

There's also a lot of other "things" that will leak in time that will make what he's doing now even seem more ridiculous.

He stands better if he wants to keep his fans by saying "no comment".

At the moment its a living and breathing workshop in how not to perform damage control!

 

[mewmewmew13]

Agree completely, on both points.

Let's stop kidding ourselves. They ALREADY KNOW the identity of the witnesses. They've known for a long time, though the Olympic withdrawal probably sealed the deal on Hincapie. Probably shouldn't have chased down George when he was in the virtual yellow... Hell, most people on here know their identity. It's not really a secret. You just assume everyone who's in the know flipped.

I'm also sure that they're exerting whatever backdoor pressure they think they can get away with on those guys. Unfortunately for Bruyneel, LA and Co, they just don't have much juice in cycling anymore. Cycling has moved on.

THIS has stuck in my mind for years....I remember how angry and devastated George was at the end of that stage..
it really was a big deal.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

+1 - since Luskin specializes in federal government investigation law, I suspect they may be planning an end-around that would bypass an arbitration hearing altogether. Basically refusing to take part in the arbitration saying it is a kangaroo court and going after USADA in a federal court against criminal charges of witness coercion etc.

Interestingly, Lance's crack legal team will need to surmount a large hurdle in that bribery statute because 18 U.S.C. § 666 is the code that should govern this instance, and there is nothing like the paragraph quoted in Wonderboy's response in that section of the code. They used 18 U.S.C. Section 201(c)(2). They left out 201(a)(1) however: "(a) For the purpose of this section -
(1) the term "public official" means Member of Congress,
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such
official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person
acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department,
agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of
Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any
such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;"

...You can do the heavy lifting on trying to figure out why a square peg doesn't fit into a round hole, but the answer to Armstrong's suggestion should be pretty evident unless you are mystified by the language or you don't know what the USADA is.

Also interestingly, they failed to cite the case law dealing with whether that refers to plea agreements under section 201 anyway (hint: even though it is doubtful they will clear the first hurdle, if they ever get to the second, they will have significant problems.)

None of that prohibits them from trying to get this into federal court, But the argument that USADA falls under (a)(1) is a loser from the start. What they did in the letter was put up some obfusacatory bull****. If they send that argument to any competent federal judge, they will get reamed up one side and down the other. You can file anything you want. Heck, you can even try to venue shop for judges more sympathetic to your cause. But all of that involves massive amounts of money and the almost certainty that you will lose. Wonderboy's ego is the type that will chase this to his financial ruin just so he never has to be honest about his doping and lying. His lawyers are doing what every lawyer has to do with a client like Gunderson; they have to put up the defense he chooses and make the only arguments they can make, even if they know it is all smoke and mirrors. Even if your client is pushing a sure loser, it's your job to do it if he is dedicated to the cause. They get paid at the end of the day regardless.

Keep fighting Lance. Please.

 

[thehog]

THIS has stuck in my mind for years....I remember how angry and devastated George was at the end of that stage..
it really was a big deal.

This to me is pivotal. Pivotal in George"s mind that he really knew how things worked. I think a penny dropped at this point. I think post stage the attempt to blame Garmin spoke volumes that "his old friend" who he helped for 7 years was maybe not so loyal.

Armstrong did mention it once a year later before the Landis stuff came out. He mentioned that it took months to bring George around and that he still blamed Vaughters for it. Which is crazy when you saw what happened on that that stage.

I think this was the impetus for George to speak his mind but not publicly. I also feel he has a soft sport for Landis but would never say as much.

 

[Kennf1]

THIS has stuck in my mind for years....I remember how angry and devastated George was at the end of that stage..
it really was a big deal.

I also remember Armstrong being interviewed right after the stage, and him scrambling to say it was Garmin that chased down George. Don't think George bought it.

 

[Hugh Januss]

"Score"? Against f*cking what? That's the first f*cking word I've said to you. You f*cking idiot.

You know, like skor a gol...

 

[thehog]

I

Wonderboy's ego is the type that will chase this to his financial ruin just so he never has to be honest about his doping and lying. His lawyers are doing what every lawyer has to do with a client like Gunderson; they have to put up the defense he chooses and make the only arguments they can make, even if they know it is all smoke and mirrors. Even if your client is pushing a sure loser, it's your job to do it if he is dedicated to the cause. They get paid at the end of the day regardless.

Keep fighting Lance. Please.

This I agree with. Its like a red rag to a bull. I think he believes he can win it on legal muscle alone. In saying that he was successful in having the Federal charges dropped. He probably think he can do it again. But that will cost. A lot of money.

 

[Jack Ruby]

1. I never doped.
2. You never caught me doping.
3. The allegations were not proved in the past, therefor are not relevant now.
4. Everybody was doping.
5. You didn't prove I doped in time.
6. You should use your resources doing something else.
7. Your witnesses have an axe to grind.
8. Your witnesses were coerced.
9. You are out to get me.
10. You don't have the right to get me.


Kind of like a modern day Lenny Bruce except he would accuse his wife of cheating when caught.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_5eI4fwdfQ

 

[MarkvW]

The parties involved

The Floyd Landis decision outlines the hierarchy involved. The next four paragraphs are quotes from the Landis case that describe the relevant actors.

The Claimant, USADA is the independent anti-doping agency in the United States, responsible for the managing of the anti-doping testing and adjudication processes for the member constituents such as USA cycling.
. . .
The Athlete holds a US license and in signing the license the Athlete agrees that the sole jurisdiction for resolving any dispute that arises shall be in the courts of domicile of the UCI. The UCI Cycling Regulations provide that adjudication of matters shall be handled by the national federation of the athlete involved.

UCI is the International Cycling Union and is the International Federation {“IF”} responsible for the organisation of the sport of cycling worldwide. It is an association of national cycling federations. The purpose of the UCI is to direct, develop, regulate, control and discipline all forms of cycling. Under UCI Cycling Regulations (“UCI Rules”) Chapter IX, it is the responsibility of USA Cycling to conduct results management and hearings regarding doping allegations. As explained more fully below, USA Cycling through contract has delegated its obligation under the UCI Rules, Chapter IX, to USADA.

USA Cycling is the official cycling organization for road racing, mountain racing, track, cyclo-cross and BMX cycling in the United States and is responsible for identifying, training and selecting cyclists to represent the United States in international competitions.

USA Cycling is a member of UCI.

USADA is funded from those contracts and from a grant from the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy. [url}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency[/url]

Both the UCI and USADA are signatories to the WADA code. http://www.usacycling.org/how-does-usada-ensure-a-fair-playing-field-for-amateurs.htm

USADA contracts with relevant testing authorities to provide drug testing programs. http://www.usada.org/contract-testing/

UCI is the ultimate authority. The UCI has delegated to USA Cycling the management of the antidoping program for US cyclists. USA Cycling contracts with USADA to run USA Cycling's antidoping program.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The Floyd Landis decision outlines the hierarchy involved. The next four paragraphs are quotes from the Landis case that describe the relevant actors.

The Claimant, USADA is the independent anti-doping agency in the United States, responsible for the managing of the anti-doping testing and adjudication processes for the member constituents such as USA cycling.
. . .
The Athlete holds a US license and in signing the license the Athlete agrees that the sole jurisdiction for resolving any dispute that arises shall be in the courts of domicile of the UCI. The UCI Cycling Regulations provide that adjudication of matters shall be handled by the national federation of the athlete involved.

UCI is the International Cycling Union and is the International Federation {“IF”} responsible for the organisation of the sport of cycling worldwide. It is an association of national cycling federations. The purpose of the UCI is to direct, develop, regulate, control and discipline all forms of cycling. Under UCI Cycling Regulations (“UCI Rules”) Chapter IX, it is the responsibility of USA Cycling to conduct results management and hearings regarding doping allegations. As explained more fully below, USA Cycling through contract has delegated its obligation under the UCI Rules, Chapter IX, to USADA.

USA Cycling is the official cycling organization for road racing, mountain racing, track, cyclo-cross and BMX cycling in the United States and is responsible for identifying, training and selecting cyclists to represent the United States in international competitions.

USA Cycling is a member of UCI.

USADA is funded from those contracts and from a grant from the United States Office of National Drug Control Policy. [url}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency[/url]

Both the UCI and USADA are signatories to the WADA code. http://www.usacycling.org/how-does-usada-ensure-a-fair-playing-field-for-amateurs.htm

USADA contracts with relevant testing authorities to provide drug testing programs. http://www.usada.org/contract-testing/

UCI is the ultimate authority. The UCI has delegated to USA Cycling the management of the antidoping program for US cyclists. USA Cycling contracts with USADA to run USA Cycling's antidoping program.

This makes me a little edgy..
as Armstrong seems to possibly hold the UCI in his clutches as well as nefarious connections with USA cycling....

possibility for some disruption seems to exist.

...please tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree..

 

[Berzin]

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.

This is the public perception. The private perception is that, like the US Federal case against him that was dropped, it was all due to backroom politiking. No public fist fighting whatsoever.

The rest of it, this so-called court of public opinion, he needed to put very little effort into. He let his groupies and anyone affiliated with him in business do the dirty work for him, and they continue to do so happily and of their own free will.

The wolves smell blood and they're circling him.

As of yet Armstrong is not being encircled. All SCA said was they were monitoring the situation closely, meaning they are paying attention to the outcome in the media just like any of us would.

Though I usually agree with your take on the situation, Hog, A little pragmatic cynicism is in order. I would not be surprised if this whole thing never made it to the hearing stage and then we will never know what actual evidence the Feds or USADA had against him.

We cannot afford overconfidence, especially after Birotte. We will have to just wait and see.

 

[thehog]

This makes me a little edgy..
as Armstrong seems to possibly hold the UCI in his clutches as well as nefarious connections with USA cycling....

possibility for some disruption seems to exist.

...please tell me I'm barking up the wrong tree..

They still have to let it play out. They can't stop it prior to a case being heard. The only thing I see either USC or the UCI doing is not formally recognising the verdict. But I think we knew that anyway. By doing that they're in for a servere amount of criticism but I don't think they care.

 

[thehog]

This is the public perception. The private perception is that, like the US Federal case against him that was dropped, it was all due to backroom politiking. No public fist fighting whatsoever.

The rest of it, this so-called court of public opinion, he needed to put very little effort into. He let his groupies and anyone affiliated with him in business do the dirty work for him, and they continue to do so happily and of their own free will.




As of yet Armstrong is not being encircled. All SCA said was they were monitoring the situation closely, meaning they are paying attention to the outcome in the media just like any of us would.

Though I usually agree with your take on the situation, Hog, A little pragmatic cynicism is in order. I would not be surprised if this whole thing never made it to the hearing stage and then we will never know what actual evidence the Feds or USADA had against him.

We cannot afford overconfidence, especially after Birotte. We will have to just wait and see.

SCA have done more than monitor. They've sent a letter to Armstrong stating they will come after their money if titles are removed.

 

[DirtyWorks]

This makes me a little edgy..
as Armstrong seems to possibly hold the UCI in his clutches as well as nefarious connections with USA cycling....

possibility for some disruption seems to exist.

Nothing nefarious about it. Weisel essentially owns USAC. Wonderboy is on the Board of Directors of USACDF. Every person friendly with Weisel/Tailwind populate USAC's Board-level position. There is no federation indepence here. None.

USAC, and by extension the UCI can, definitely throw a spanner into what should be an open and shut case for USADA.