rhubroma said:Armstrong will win this, there are too many interests at stake.
But will there be a hearing?
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
rhubroma said:Armstrong will win this, there are too many interests at stake.
rhubroma said:Ah, who knows.
Athletes' in AAA and CAS tribunals cannot be forced to testify against themselves, they can choose not to testify. However, if they choose to testify before an AAA or CAS tribunal, they have a legal duty to testify truthfully. Hellebuyck breached that duty when he testified that he never used EPO in his 2004 hearing before the AAA and 2005 hearing before CAS. But for his perjury, Hellebuyck's records would have been expunged from 2001 through 2004. Hellebuyck cannot now come before this tribunal and in essence use his perjury as a means to avoid the consequences that should have been imposed in 2004.
8.15 The elements required for equitable tolling of a statute of limitations under fraudulent concealment are as follows: (1) concealment of the wrongful conduct by defendant, (2) plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the wrongful conduct, (3) plaintiff brought suit within the length of the limitations period after discovery of the wrongful conduct, (4) plaintiff's lack of knowledge of the wrongful conduct was not attributable to a lack of diligence, and (5) reliance on the fraudulent concealment. All elements have been met in this case.
8.16 Here, the Panel determines, as an alternate basis for its decision, that permitting Hellebuyck to assert a statute of limitations period, whether substantive or procedural in nature would also allow Hellebuyck to benefit from his own misconduct. In essence, if the Panel were to permit Hellebuyck's position, the Panel would be asserting a rule that would have the effect of encouraging wrongdoers to testify falsely, and intentionally so, to AAA and CAS arbitration tribunals and then sit silent until after the expiration of the limitations period, coming clean with impunity. The Panel is of the view that the anti-doping rules were not designed or intended to create such a possibility and that allowing this would run counter to the fight for doping free sport that the anti-doping rules are built to protect. In support of this position, Travis Tygart testified as follows:
But what 1 know is, when he lied, he covered up, he took responsibility. He cheated clean athletes. And the fundamental principle that clean athletes rely on is that his results should be disqualified. Where that fits in legally within this case, I don't know because I'm not handling this case and I'm not an expert on that. But what I do know is those results deserve to be disqualified because that's what clean athletes expect. That's what they deserve for competing on a clean playing field despite the fact that he cheated them and then lied about his cheating
Merckx index said:A key issue in USADA’s case is whether they can use the Hellebuyck decision as a precedent to circumvent the SOL of eight years. They will need to do this to sanction LA for anything he did prior to the 2004 TDF.
This decision was based on this premise:
Could you not also say, “Armstrong breached that duty when he testified that he never used EPO in his 2005 hearing before the SCA. But for his perjury, Armstrong's records would have been expunged from 1999 through 2005. Armstrong cannot now come before this tribunal and in essence use his perjury as a means to avoid the consequences that should have been imposed in 2005.”
There are at least two important differences between Hellebuyck and Armstrong. First, LA never testified before an AAA or CAS panel specifically empowered to determine whether he doped. He did testify in front of SCA, under oath, and the purpose of that testimony was to allow certain parties to decide whether he had doped, but the purpose of that hearing was not to determine whether he should be sanctioned in relationship to past or future competition. I don’t know whether this difference matters or not, it seems to me it shouldn’t.
A second important difference is that Hellebuyck confessed, eventually, to his perjury. He tried to argue against a further sanction by raising some technical issues, but at that point his confession of doping and perjury was a fact. So a major legal issue, I think, is whether the balance of testimony against LA can be used to establish that he perjured himself before the SCA. If it is concluded that the evidence of doping in the earlier years supports a sanction, can that fact then be used to argue that he must have committed perjury before SCA?
If it can't, then by hanging tough, LA could limit the maximum damage to two Tour titles. But if this roundabout procedure can be used, then I think the criteria set forth in Hellebuyck could apply to him:
Moreover, USADA apparently opened the door for a wider application of this tolling principle by providing another way of rationalizing it:
rhubroma said:Armstrong will win this, there are too many interests at stake.
ChewbaccaD said:I actually fear this will be the case. The evidence can be clear and unmistakeable, but that doesn't mean the case is closed. Wonderboy has been able to get out of scrapes in ways that would make Bill Clinton proud, and he may very well get out of this.
131313 said:Yes, but they're both previously-sanctioned athletes who have been painted as "bitter losers"; a bit tougher to do with those with no prior sanction.
ChrisE said:Ahh, so the dopers that implicated LA will be sanctioned "consistent with the rules of USADA" or however you phrased it the other week, will be punished afterwards? Gotta get that timing right, and our opinions.
ChewbaccaD said:131313 has an opinion rather than some shapeshifting barb filled post meant to prove the superiority of the author rather than actually creating substantive debate. I kind of like his commentary.
thehog said:The fact that Prop 29 failed a dismal death shows Armstrong's standing with Goverment is close to zero.
Also the public is against him. If you can't get a cigarette taxed passed in a health conscious state then everyone thinks you're a knob.
1m for Hati, 1.5m for Prop 29, 150k for planned parenthood.
It's fun to play with other peoples money.
take it easy, phanboyChrisE said:Ahh, so the dopers that implicated LA will be sanctioned "consistent with the rules of USADA" or however you phrased it the other week, will be punished afterwards? Gotta get that timing right, and our opinions.
ChrisE said:...and I shall drink one more beer than normal that day.
python said:take it easy, phanboy
Please, explain to us slowly why the accused of doping your home boy is less deserving of the usada hammer than the 'dopers that implicated Armstrong's.. Tell us phanboy.
ChrisE said:...and I shall drink one more beer than normal that day.
ChrisE said:Hi RH. Glad to see you back.
Please post a link where I say he is "less deserving". Take your time.
I wrote I hope he gets away with it. Please try to keep up....you just can't delete my posts or ban me whenever I start to make your head hurt in here. Thanks.
ChrisE said:I am a "shapeshifting barb"? Never been called that, I kinda like it. 13113131311 is not being consistent either so it must be contagious.
And, I do admit I have meandered back and forth about whether LA should be punished if guilty. I now pronounce I am firmly in the "I hope he gets off so TFF will bust a spring" camp.
I do like how you have evolved as well in terms of respect for LA's athletic abilities. Who would have thought him getting jammed by USADA would make you, of all people, write that beautiful post in the donkey thread. Congrats.
TechnicalDescent said:I tend to disagree. He doesn't actually have to present any evidence. He just has to deny the accusations. What a hearing will do is give a chance for his lawyers to cross examine the witnesses. It would be interesting to see how many of them take up the chance to throw their career's away now they can't be anonymous anymore. It's the least they should be required to do if they are going to send Armstrong down for the same thing.
ChrisE said:Ahh, so the dopers that implicated LA will be sanctioned "consistent with the rules of USADA" or however you phrased it the other week, will be punished afterwards? Gotta get that timing right, and our opinions.
ChewbaccaD said:I didn't bust a spring when the federal case was closed. No reason to bust one if he gets off this. He wouldn't be the first lying narcissist sociopath to walk.
As for respecting his athletic abilities, I was originally a fan because of them, no reason to deny their existence. I don't think he would have won 7 titles, or maybe even one without doping, but that doesn't mean I think he was an also ran in relation to ability. I think he would have made a fine classics rider regardless. My beef has and always will be with the way he has treated others in his effort to hide his fraud. I don't, and never will like bullies, and I always like to see them have to take their medicine. He may not have to, but here's to hope!
JRTinMA said:It was the closest race in California history failing by less then 1%. I have no idea if its true that LAF donated 1.5MM but the tobacco lobby spent 50MM on a misinformation campaign designed to confuse voters. Support fell 20% after the misinformation campaign. Armstrong may be an idiot but the failure of prop 29 has nothing to do with his standing with the government.