USADA - Armstrong

[DomesticDomestique]

There was no criminal prosecution brought, therefore there is no jeopardy. Investigation does not mean anything

This is correct re: double jeopardy. He never was tried, let alone acquitted, which would be a standard for double jeopardy. Additionally, being punished in a different manner, also doesn't apply to DJ. See OJ Simpson, acquitted in criminal court, liable in civil court. In this case even if he had been tried and acquitted in federal court, he could still be sanctioned by a different governing body. This portion of the argument is a Public Relations Hail Mary.

 

[Race Radio]

Where can the complaint be found?

Here

http://t.co/fyk6WLpb

 

[aphronesis]

If you believe the conspiracy allegations, the facts are intertwined. If you don't believe the conspiracy allegations, then the facts are not intertwined.

I read the letter ( not that I needed to) and believe regardless that there are grounds for such a charge--or accusation. However, not knowing all the facts--or witnesses-I don't believe that competent lawyers would be unable to segregate and delimit many of the "facts," relative to the respective roles of the conspirators.The USADA is already on one procedural ledge trying to extend the SOL such that only one of the co-cons faces sanctions distinct from the others. Trying to make it a conspiracy will be another.

 

[Race Radio]

Multiple dopers have tried to say that USADA and other US Feds are state actors. They have all failed.

 

[aphronesis]

Multiple dopers have tried to say that USADA and other US Feds are state actors. They have all failed.

Um, are you saying US Feds are not State actors? How else wiuld you define them? Bureaucracy in white hats?

 

[MacRoadie]

Um, are you saying US Feds are not State actors? How else wiuld you define them? Bureaucracy in white hats?

I believe he means Feds as in "federations"...

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Multiple dopers have tried to say that USADA and other US Feds are state actors. They have all failed.

I am four pages into the motion, and I hate to say this, but he has a point that will likely see the court grant his motion:

"c. USADA is a state actor under the coercive power test because its investigation of Mr. Armstrong, and the resulting charges, stem from a two-year investigation it conducted alongside—and with the rights afforded only to—federal government investigators and agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Food & Drug Administration, and, among others, the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General. "

I can easily see a court allowing this particular issue to be contested in court. What I see, unfortunately, is the beginning of a long drawn-out legal battle. The judge is unlikely to dismiss the motion with this much at stake.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Um, are you saying US Feds are not State actors? How else wiuld you define them? Bureaucracy in white hats?

There is an actual legal test for such things. If you are going to join the party, do some research. "State actors" isn't a characterization, it is a legal definition. And no, I won't do the heavy lifting for you. Look it up yourself.

 

[PedalPusher]

What I find amazing is his legal team actually tried to make an argument for double jeopardy? Really? A first year law student knows what the definition is! Are they trying to p*ss off the judge?

And then to claim USADA does not have authority or jurisdiction over the matter? Scratching my head....


Even IF they could swing the "state actor", the USADA has not violated the rules of arbitration or their own rules.

This will be thrown out though, it will have to play out through arbitration before the courts will even entertain possibly reviewing the outcome. And they rarely do with arbitration.

It must be a campaign of throw as much sh*t against the wall and see what sticks!

 

[aphronesis]

There is an actual legal test for such things. If you are going to join the party, do some research. "State actors" isn't a characterization, it is a legal definition. And no, I won't do the heavy lifting for you. Look it up yourself.

Cynicism aside, I don't find much in my post that belies an ignorance of that definition.

And don't sweat it, I don't burden TAs with my research.

 

[PedalPusher]

I am four pages into the motion, and I hate to say this, but he has a point that will likely see the court grant his motion:

"c. USADA is a state actor under the coercive power test because its investigation of Mr. Armstrong, and the resulting charges, stem from a two-year investigation it conducted alongside—and with the rights afforded only to—federal government investigators and agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Food & Drug Administration, and, among others, the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General. "

I can easily see a court allowing this particular issue to be contested in court. What I see, unfortunately, is the beginning of a long drawn-out legal battle. The judge is unlikely to dismiss the motion with this much at stake.

Except the USADA made it clear they gleaned no information from the Fed/Grand Jury investigation in their charging information.

 

[Microchip]

 

[BroDeal]

I wonder at what point someone in the USADA starts to leak evidence for PR purposes. The case does not even have to go to arbitration to destroy Armstrong.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

I wonder at what point someone in the USADA starts to leak evidence for PR purposes. The case does not even have to go to arbitration to destroy Armstrong.

But won't leaking potentially give Armstrong a way out - There must be laws against that sort of thing and, if not, I am sure he would play it up.

 

[Microchip]

What about the others named by USADA? Have they responded?

 

[Anonymous]

I am four pages into the motion, and I hate to say this, but he has a point that will likely see the court grant his motion:

"c. USADA is a state actor under the coercive power test because its investigation of Mr. Armstrong, and the resulting charges, stem from a two-year investigation it conducted alongside—and with the rights afforded only to—federal government investigators and agencies, including the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Food & Drug Administration, and, among others, the United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General. "

I can easily see a court allowing this particular issue to be contested in court. What I see, unfortunately, is the beginning of a long drawn-out legal battle. The judge is unlikely to dismiss the motion with this much at stake.

Contested perhaps. But the evidence was gathered separately. That should squash this quickly (my guess).

 

[DomesticDomestique]

But won't leaking potentially give Armstrong a way out - There must be laws against that sort of thing and, if not, I am sure he would play it up.

I believe the problem (and maybe TFF can chime in here) is that they could set themselves up for a defamation lawsuit and all of a sudden that $10M per year is going to things other than protecting clean sport. Granted it would be fun to see "truth as an absolute defense for libel" s*** hit the fan in a court room with USADA.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Cynicism aside, I don't find much in my post that belies an ignorance of that definition.

Sure it does. Lance's attorneys are twisting themselves into a pretzel to make the case, and on its face, the suggestion has been adjudicated in opposition to their suggestion. As such, to find that the USADA is a "state actor" would be new precedent, and as such falls well outside what is now considered to be the definition. Thus, your entire premise "belies" (the word you were looking for was "confirms." Your choice of word actually admits your ignorance, but I digress) your understanding of the definition of a "state actor."

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder at what point someone in the USADA starts to leak evidence for PR purposes. The case does not even have to go to arbitration to destroy Armstrong.

I hope they don't. It's way more entertaining to watch Lance twist in the wind.

 

[BroDeal]

But won't leaking potentially give Armstrong a way out - There must be laws against that sort of thing and, if not, I am sure he would play it up.

It is not a federal investigation or anything. I don't think there are any laws about it.

Perhaps it could compromise the action against Armstrong, but what does Armstrong say if a transcript of a Vaughters interview with the USADA found its way to the New York Times? Most of the information would probably be about the Postal team's doctors and staff.

 

[BroDeal]

I believe the problem (and maybe TFF can chime in here) is that they could set themselves up for a defamation lawsuit and all of a sudden that $10M per year is going to things other than protecting clean sport. Granted it would be fun to see "truth as an absolute defense for libel" s*** hit the fan in a court room with USADA.

I don't see how Armstrong can ever file a defamation suit in the U.S. The last thing he wants is ex-teammates being deposed or even worse testifying in open court under oath, especially when the USADA can use what was said at sit downs with federal investigators to make sure the teammates tell the truth.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

It is not a federal investigation or anything. I don't think there are any laws about it.

Perhaps it could compromise the action against Armstrong, but what does Armstrong say if a transcript of a Vaughters interview with the USADA found its way to the New York Times? Most of the information would probably be about the Postal team's doctors and staff.

I am just guessing. It just seems that sometimes it is better to be whiter than cwhite so you can't be pulled up on anything. Believe me, I am as interested at the next poster in the Clinic to read about everything that went on.

 

[frizzlefry]

I don't see how Armstrong can ever file a defamation suit in the U.S. The last thing he wants is ex-teammates being deposed or even worse testifying in open court under oath, especially when the USADA can use what was said at sit downs with federal investigators to make sure the teammates tell the truth.

Thats exaclty what LA wants, to cross examine any ex teammates who made statements. He will win in a landslide after his lawyers ask questions such as this:

1) Were you offered immunity in exchange for your testimony against LA?

2) Is it true that you previously said “Lance never doped” hundreds of times before you changed your story to protect your own interests?

Those ex teammates will get torn apart in any court.

 

[Kennf1]

Thats exaclty what LA wants, to cross examine any ex teammates who made statements. He will win in a landslide after his lawyers ask questions such as this:

1) Were you offered immunity in exchange for your testimony against LA?

2) Is it true that you previously said “Lance never doped” hundreds of times before you changed your story to protect your own interests?

Those ex teammates will get torn apart in any court.

Which is why he sued Floyd and Tyler?

 

[PedalPusher]

I believe the problem (and maybe TFF can chime in here) is that they could set themselves up for a defamation lawsuit and all of a sudden that $10M per year is going to things other than protecting clean sport. Granted it would be fun to see "truth as an absolute defense for libel" s*** hit the fan in a court room with USADA.

Someone already tried the "defamation" route with USADA, didn't work.

Graham v. United States Anti-Doping Agency, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34637 (D.N.C. 2011)