USADA - Armstrong

[Moose McKnuckles]

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.

And the answers are:

1. No
2. No

Nice try though.

 

[frizzlefry]

And the answers are:

1. No
2. No

Nice try though.

How do you know the answers? got proof? supply it if you do.

 

[Anonymous]

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.

Hincapie won't.

 

[DomesticDomestique]

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.

While Armstrong doesn't want that, USADA doesn't either. They can't afford to settle the lawsuit out of court on their budget and can't afford to fight it either. This is a strong deterrent for USADA from leaking stuff. Granted, I would love to see it go to court, the same way I would love to see FatPat sue Floyd. In fact I'd love to watch any liar try to sue for defamation, it would be like watching them pee into the wind.

 

[Merckx index]

From the injunction motion:

Immediate relief is necessary because USADA seeks to force Mr. Armstrong to choose by 5:00 pm eastern on July 14, 2012 either to participate in USADA’s pre-ordained proceeding or to agree to skip the pretense altogether and accept USADA’s sanctions.

I assume this means they already filed for a five day extension.

4. Mr. Armstrong readily meets each of the four elements for the granting of a Temporary Restraining Order.

I'm not familiar with the legal precedents they cite following this quote, but it's pretty clear that if LA meets these four elements, so would any other athlete charged with doping.

The argument is based on four main counts, followed by some other points.

Count I: Due Process. As I suggested earlier that they would, LA’s team is claiming USADA is a state actor. A previous court decision has already found it isn’t, but they need to claim this in order to claim that LA is not being given due process. Here is an article co-written by Tygart explaining the evidence that USADA is not a state actor[/URL]. I also provided earlier a link to an article trying to support the State Actor argument. I expect LA’s lawyers have been studying that.

This is by far the most detailed argument in the letter. LA's team knows that if they don't establish state actor--and the odds are quite strong against them--they don't have a strong case. They make two main claims to support the state actor argument, that USADA has public function and coercive power. The public function argument has already basically been negated by previous court decisions. The coercive power claim hangs on the supposition that USADA worked closely with the federal investigation, in effect getting all the rights associated with genuine federal agencies. In my humble, non-expert opinion, this is the lynchpin of the entire argument. Their case is made or broken on this claim.

Count II: Common Law. "USADA not only lacks jurisdiction to charge Mr. Armstrong, it also has violated its own rules by flouting the applicable statute of limitations, providing improper inducements to witnesses, and subverting the Review Board process." Very weak, IMO. Doesn't say exactly why USADA lacks jurisdiction. The SOL claim is a separate argument, even if USADA lost it, it wouldn't invalidate its entire case. The improper inducements claim we have discussed here thoroughly. Same with stacking the RB.

Count III. Tortious interference. "USADA has proceeded with its charges in contravention of the UCI rules, thereby interfering with UCI’s performance of its obligations, including, inter alia, UCI’s control over results management, its exclusive jurisdiction over the drug tests upon which USADA relies..."

This count, IMO, is the one that would go furthest towards destroying USADA. As I read it, they are basically claiming USADA is illegitimate, that it can't do what it says on its website it's supposed to do.

Count IV. Declaratory Relief. "Mr. Armstrong seeks declaratory relief that: a) he has no enforceable agreement with USADA that authorizes arbitration with respect to the charges against him; b) USADA lacks jurisdiction to bring the charges asserted against him; and, inter alia, c) any alleged contract with USADA is unenforceable for the reasons alleged by him."

Irreparable Injury. Any athlete charged with doping could make this argument. Though since LA is retired, being suspended has far less of an effect on his livelihood than it would on an active athlete.

Balance of Harm. Claims no one will be harmed by a temporary injunction.

Public Interest. Waste of taxpayer money blah, blah, blah.

THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS ONCE AND FOR AND ALL THAT LA IS WILLING TO DESTROY ANYONE AND ANYTHING IN HIS PATH.

More from CN:

Armstrong’s lawyer Mark Fabiani provided BikeRadar with the motion for temporary restraining order as well as two related documents, a 111-page final complaint and a 57-page final brief. These latter documents present the large case of Armstrong’s position, asserting his innocence against all charges.

Didn't someone here suggest that LA's lawyers might charge in effect as much as $10,000 per page of legal briefs? That would be about $2 million so far.

 

[aphronesis]

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."

Get you hands on a proper dictionary and you'll find--appropriately enough to this situation-that a basic definition of belie is betray. Betray ignorance, confirm ignorance. Think of it as an LSAT verbal question.

I asked a question of an individual how they would characterize it. That needn't conflict with legal precedent. You yourself are not in agreement with all SC rulings-for example.

 

[hfer07]

I don't know if this already posted but i just found this:

Armstrong to sue USADA to "block" charges:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/lance-armstrong-sues-doping-agency-to-block-charges-070912

 

[Anonymous]

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.

This, on it's face, is a stupid post.

Immunity? Even Lance's own leak didn't claim immunity. A reduced punisment/sentence/bann? Sure.

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

I don't know what you are good at, but this isn't it.

 

[frizzlefry]

This, on it's face, is a stupid post.

Immunity? Even Lance's own leak didn't claim immunity. A reduced punisment/sentence/bann? Sure.



I don't know what you are good at, but this isn't it.

Thats my opinion that those are a couple of the questions LA lawyers are going to ask. If you dont think they will be asked thats your opinion. but you would make a horrible lawyer if you didnt ask them.

 

[BroDeal]

How do you know the answers? got proof? supply it if you do.

The only proof he needs is to not be a moron.

Armstrong cannot affort to have his teammates being asked specific questions about what happened on Postal and Disco when the lawyers asking questions have a road map in the form of confessions to federal investigators.

Testimony about what injections team doctors gave, the logistics of doping, the role of Bruyneel, consultations with Dr. Ferrari does directly involve Armstrong but will still sink Armstrong's reputation.

 

[PedalPusher]

From the injunction motion:



I assume this means they already filed for a five day extension.

The argument is based on four main counts, followed by some other points.

Count I: Due Process. As I suggested earlier that they would, LA’s team is claiming USADA is a state actor. A previous court decision has already found it isn’t, but they need to claim this in order to claim that LA is not being given due process. I also provided earlier a link to an article trying to support the State Actor argument. I expect LA’s lawyers have been studying that.

Count II: Common Law. USADA is claiming sanctions for as far back as 1998, but USADA did not exist then.

Count III. Tortious interference. Claims USADA interfering with UCI.

Count IV. Declaratory Relief. LA has no enforceable agreement with USADA that allows the latter to bring charges against him.

These two counts are the ones that, if upheld, would go furthest towards destroying USADA. As I read them, they are basically saying USADA is illegitimate, that it can’t do what it says it is supposed to do on its website.

Irreparable Injury. Any athlete charged with doping could make this argument. Though since LA is retired, being suspended has far less of an effect on his livelihood than it would on an active athlete.

Balance of Harm. Claims no one will be harmed by a temporary injunction.

Public Interest. Waste of taxpayer money blah, blah, blah.

THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS ONCE AND FOR AND ALL THAT LA IS WILLING TO DESTROY ANYONE AND ANYTHING IN HIS PATH.

I surmise the judge's ruling will be this, "Denied for failure to state a claim of relief that can be granted and the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction".

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

How do you know the answers? got proof? supply it if you do.

Do you know the answers? Thought not. Stop being a dingleberry farmer for Lance.

 

[Anonymous]

Thats my opinion that those are a couple of the questions LA lawyers are going to ask. If you dont think they will be asked thats your opinion. but you would make a horrible lawyer if you didnt ask them.

And you would make a horrible lawyer if your client was Lance and you put him in a position to be cross-examined.

A suit of this type will never be filed.

 

[frizzlefry]

Do you know the answers? Thought not. Stop being a dingleberry farmer for Lance.

LMFAO, got nothing do ya.

 

[soverylarry]

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.

oh god, i think you're right Chewie...this could drag on and on. I hope not, but it seems so easy for an Austin to judge to allow for some type of stay for the home town king makes me queasy. Please RR, tell me there's a good chance this doesn't get derailed in Austin...

 

[PedalPusher]

oh god, i think you're right Chewie...this could drag on and on. I hope not, but it seems so easy for an Austin to judge to allow for some type of stay for the home town king makes me queasy. Please RR, tell me there's a good chance this doesn't get derailed in Austin...

Already answered.

 

[Anonymous]

oh god, i think you're right Chewie...this could drag on and on. I hope not, but it seems so easy for an Austin to judge to allow for some type of stay for the home town king makes me queasy. Please RR, tell me there's a good chance this doesn't get derailed in Austin...

Delayed maybe. Travis had to see this coming. This can't be surprising to anyone at USADA.

It's a high form of dooshbaggery... but what else would anyone expect from camp Armstrong?

 

[Anonymous]

LMFAO, got nothing do ya.

I really doubt that friz.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

That would be a nightmare.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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

Yes, but an investigation of that point is not out of order from my perspective. They were there, nobody says otherwise. As such, the question of whether that should constitute them being a state actor in this instance is one I think a court could easily justify looking into.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

LMFAO, got nothing do ya.

No evidence anyone has been offered immunity yet.
How many people have claimed time and time again that "Lance is clean"? Even if they did, do you think that's going to help him? Underlings testify against mob bosses all the time. The evidence against Lance is overwhelming, and everyone knows it.

All the fanboys can do is take a few last sniffs at Lance's chammy.

Enjoy it, kid.

 

[BroDeal]

That would be a nightmare.

For Armstrong.

There is nothing that says that information gleened from people who voluntarily came to the USADA to reveal doping has to be kept secret. People outside the USADA that were subject to intimidation by Armstrong can help the press out.

Gotta play hardball.

leak leak leak

 

[mewmewmew13]

Many athletes have tried the same route, they have all failed. Armstrong will fail as well.

Armstrong thinks the process is unfair because he is unable to corrupt it.

This sums up pretty well how his mind works doesn't it?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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.

The answers would be weighed against the equally damaging testimony they provide. People who are given deals testify all the time. People who lied many times before testifying are asked about that in court all the time. Most of the time the person charged is convicted.

If you are going to post, do so intelligently, please.

 

[Microchip]

I Googled a couple of the other names in the USADA letter, in the News section, but came up with nothing. Lance couldn't be the only one responding. Of course, he's taking the spotlight, but it couldn't be that the others aren't responding. Anyone heard anything about the rest?