USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

Mr. Griffith pleaded guilty. Something Armstrong has yet to do.

Nice comeback as well:


USADA confirmed the board's recommendation Friday after one of its members, Clark Griffith, told The Associated Press he "can't wait" to see what the arbitration panel thinks of the evidence.

 

[Cal_Joe]

Mr. Griffith pleaded guilty. Something Armstrong has yet to do.

No he didn't - http://www.twincities.com/localnews...=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

 

[Cal_Joe]

So far no mention of Johan, Ferrari, etc. Odd.

 

[thehog]

Nice comeback as well:


USADA confirmed the board's recommendation Friday after one of its members, Clark Griffith, told The Associated Press he "can't wait" to see what the arbitration panel thinks of the evidence.

So I guess the question now is: Will Armstrong contest? I'd saying hearing after the Games.

 

[thehog]

No he didn't - http://www.twincities.com/localnews...=Search-www.twincities.com-www.twincities.com

I stand corrected.

Griffith said Armstrong's tweet was "an effort to get away from the issues that will be dealt with by an arbitration panel. OK? By smearing me, that does nothing. I'm innocent of that."

USADA has not publicly released most of its evidence against Armstrong. Griffith would not discuss Armstrong's case in detail but said, "He's really scrambling .... I can't wait to hear what the arbitration panel thinks of the evidence."

 

[Trailzz]

rumour has it that Armstrong offered someone $300k to say Griffith used illegal stimulants to stay awake for his exams in law school.

 

[MarkvW]

I stand corrected.

Griffith said Armstrong's tweet was "an effort to get away from the issues that will be dealt with by an arbitration panel. OK? By smearing me, that does nothing. I'm innocent of that."

USADA has not publicly released most of its evidence against Armstrong. Griffith would not discuss Armstrong's case in detail but said, "He's really scrambling .... I can't wait to hear what the arbitration panel thinks of the evidence."

Wrong again, hoggy. You were right the first time!
He did an "Alford" plea. That is most definitely pleading guilty.

 

[thehog]

Wrong again, hoggy. You were right the first time!
He did an "Alford" plea. That is most definitely pleading guilty.

Thanks mate for watching over me. Got your back.

 

[Marva32]

Wrong again, hoggy. You were right the first time!
He did an "Alford" plea. That is most definitely pleading guilty.

An "Alford" plea is not the same as pleading guilty. It is stipulating what the evidence would show and accepting punishment without an admission of guilt.

 

[MarkvW]

Major Kong has piloted his bomber through the first line of Mother Livestrong's defenses! Looks like there is going to be a hearing!!

 

[MarkvW]

An "Alford" plea is not the same as pleading guilty. It is stipulating what the evidence would show and accepting punishment without an admission of guilt.

An Alford plea is a guilty plea without an admission of guilt. It IS a guilty plea.

It is most emphatically NOT a stipulation. You can appeal a stip; you (almost always) can't appeal a guilty plea.

In the eyes of the law, the guy be an exposer. Dancing close to felonyland, too. ..

 

[zigmeister]

Shocking news alert!!! USADA panel decides there is enough info to move forward on hearing and case!

Big surprise.

We all know the outcome, Lance along with others, are already going to be found guilty and wins taken away based off Tyler/Floyd and their testimony, along with bogus tests that are "indicative of doping." Whatever that means.

Just get on with the dog and pony show and end this thing, we all know the outcome.

 

[Love the Scenery]

rumour has it that Armstrong offered someone $300k to say Griffith used illegal stimulants to stay awake for his exams in law school.

That might have been an effective line of attack. A charge of indecent exposure, however, has no bearing on Griffith's fitness to make an accusation of PED trafficking and conspiracy. It is an off-topic logical fallacy, similar to what moderators are currently banning people for on this forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

 

[Microchip]

"Doping charges recommended in Armstrong case"

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/doping-charges-recommended-in-armstrong-case

Putting this in quick, before the board gets closed for maintenance!

 

[MarkvW]

Shocking news alert!!! USADA panel decides there is enough info to move forward on hearing and case!

Big surprise.

We all know the outcome, Lance along with others, are already going to be found guilty and wins taken away based off Tyler/Floyd and their testimony, along with bogus tests that are "indicative of doping." Whatever that means.

Just get on with the dog and pony show and end this thing, we all know the outcome.

The outcome isn't what's important Ziggy! It's the fact that there is likely going to be a hearing and the truth will get out!

 

[Merckx index]

If there are no delays, the hearing should take place within three months after choosing the arbs. So it looks like October. Very interesting to see who the arbs will be, hopefully no gropers to distract from the real issues. LA should hope that his fate is never again in the hands of Griffith, really not a great idea to alienate someone who has some power in the sports law world.

If anyone here wants to start a petition/write a letter urging LA to opt for a public hearing, I’ll sign it.

Edit: CN botched something again. LA stands to lose two Tour titles that are within the SOL, the remaining five depending on whether USADA can get its argument for extending the SOL to be accepted.

 

[US Patent Exploding Cyclist]

An Alford plea is a guilty plea without an admission of guilt. It IS a guilty plea.

It is most emphatically NOT a stipulation. You can appeal a stip; you (almost always) can't appeal a guilty plea.

In the eyes of the law, the guy be an exposer. Dancing close to felonyland, too. ..

A simple google search would tell you that an Alford Plea is NOT a guilty plea. A defendent takes an Alford Plea when the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove to a judge or jury that the defendent committed the crime, but the defendent never takes ownership of the crime.

So an Alford Plea is "I didn't do it, but you have enough evidence that you could probably convince people I did, so I'm gonna say you win to avoid a harsher sentence"

 

[Deagol]

posters on Velonews say things like "no one cares anymore" but that sounds like BS to me.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...-pursuing-case-against-lance-armstrong_226507

I would argue that anything happening in cycling means next to nothing until this fraud in exposed. I'm not on Facebook, so I can't comment on Velonews..

 

[MarkvW]

A simple google search would tell you that an Alford Plea is NOT a guilty plea. A defendent takes an Alford Plea when the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove to a judge or jury that the defendent committed the crime, but the defendent never takes ownership of the crime.

So an Alford Plea is "I didn't do it, but you have enough evidence that you could probably convince people I did, so I'm gonna say you win to avoid a harsher sentence"

Better than Google is exactly what the Supreme Court said in Alford:

Confronted with the choice between a trial for first-degree murder, on the one hand, and a plea of guilty to second-degree murder, on the other, Alford quite reasonably chose the latter and thereby limited the maximum penalty to a 30-year term. When his plea is viewed in light of the evidence against him, which substantially negated his claim of innocence and which further provided a means by which the judge could test whether the plea was being intelligently entered, see McCarthy v. United States, supra, 394 U.S., at 466-467, 89 S.Ct., at 1170-1171 (1969), its validity cannot be seriously questioned. In view of the strong factual basis for the plea demonstrated by the State and Alford's clearly expressed desire to enter it despite his professed belief in his innocence, we hold that the trial judge did not commit constitutional error in accepting it.

. . .

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was in error to find Alford's plea of guilty invalid because it was made to avoid the possibility of the death penalty. That court's judgment directing the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus is vacated and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

But thanks for the Google advice! From one Google Lawyer to another! I think I'm wrong about the appeal of an alford plea, though.

 

[WindLessBreeze]

Low*Blow/USADA

The Arbitration Panel will find No Merits to these preposterous allegations of PED PUSHER, etc. Next the Int'l Court of Law at The Hague will deliver an Habbeas Corpus. Then the Chain*Reaction sets in: A Class action Lawsuit on behalf of all those wrongly accused. Lately they messed up Luis Mansilla, Sinkewitz, The Russian from Katusha, Romanov or whatsoever.........>>>>>>>>.
Lone*Star/Urban^Cowboys

 

[patricknd]

Poilsh...out of respect for other forum members, I will not quote you, but your continual nonsensical obfuscation is now being ignored by one more member. Soon you will be the only one seeing your posts.

Mods, I would suggest that a way for members to view who is ignoring themselves may be a good thing. If it became obvious to some that what they say is becoming ever closer to a discussion with only themselves, maybe they would wake up or give up.

afraid of confronting the truth? a coward dies a thousand deaths....

 

[lostintime]

Once again... the time honored of pro cycling shooting itself in the foot .

On the eve of the TDF .... headlines are made ... not by the race ... but of someone(USADA) who wants to feed off the spotlight. It's rather sad , yet comical at the same time

 

[red_flanders]

The topic is USADA/Armstrong, not other forum members or their posting histories. Please move on from the off-topic posts.

If you have an issues with a poster, I can assure it will be heard if you PM someone on the mod team, and we are very aware of the issues on the forum.

Thanks for your help in making the clinic a more readable, civil and useful forum.

 

[Polish]

A simple google search would tell you that an Alford Plea is NOT a guilty plea. A defendent takes an Alford Plea when the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove to a judge or jury that the defendent committed the crime, but the defendent never takes ownership of the crime.

So an Alford Plea is "I didn't do it, but you have enough evidence that you could probably convince people I did, so I'm gonna say you win to avoid a harsher sentence"

Can Lance use one of these "Alford Pleas".

Granted, doping is nowhere near as serious as murder or indecent exposure, but does it make sense for Lance to "pull an Alford"?

And I am not trying to be funny. Many here think I am joking haha. Tired of my humour. Dudes, I am and have been serious. Not joking. Although that might make you feel even worse waawaa.

 

[henryg]

Can Lance use one of these "Alford Pleas".

Granted, doping is nowhere near as serious as murder or indecent exposure, but does it make sense for Lance to "pull an Alford"?

And I am not trying to be funny. Many here think I am joking haha. Tired of my humour. Dudes, I am and have been serious. Not joking. Although that might make you feel even worse waawaa.

Not a court of law. These are private organizations with their own set of rules and procedures. Those competing agree to the rules and process for sanctions if the rules are broken.