USADA - Armstrong

[Cimacoppi49]

Thanks for providing the link. We should all read it. I think that the points are valid and his legal team is taking the right approach to fight this. Not only is "his fight" beneficial to himself, it's going to be beneficial to all athletes if Lance's legal team is successful.

I am sure that there is a reason for why Lance's team filed their complaint in Austin and it is more then the proximity to Lance's home. Based on the points brought up in that article, there is bound to be some conservative judge who will agree with Lance's complaint.

That's why I am hoping that, at some point, somebody will simply post the testimonies online so that we can read them at our leisure. Otherwise, I have this sinking feeling that our enthusiasm for the general public to know the truth will be short-lived.

Unfortunately, predicting how federal judges are going to go with your requests is sort of like going to card reader. There are six judges sitting in Austin. Whilst Tim Herman and co-counsel no doubt made a calculated decision to file in Austin, they may have overplayed their hand. When you're a yes man to a guy like Armstrong, it often becomes difficult to fully appreciate what's actually going on outside the bubble. IMO, this is one of those times.

As for conservatives on the bench, this is not about liberal or conservative. It's about arbitration and a party seeking to block that.

Judges do not live in bubbles. They are real people who read papers, watch news reports and follow sports--even professional cycling and its heroes, especially if the hero is local. I doubt that any judge on the Austin Federal bench is unaware of the steady drumbeat of former Armstrong associates pointing the drug accusation finger at him. As Oliver Wendell Holmes noted, your case may well be influenced by whether or not your judge has had a fight that morning with his wife. It's called American Judicial Realism.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Here's a general legal question for the lawyers and law students on this list.

In a civil case between Party A and Party B, and either party compel Party C to testify as a witness?

I mean, if my neighbor cuts his tree down and it falls on my house, and I know my neighbor across the street witnessed the whole thing, if that neighbor is unwilling to testify, in my suit against my neighbor do I have any legal recourse to require the witness neighbor to testify? Can I get the court to subpoena him?

My point:
If an ordinary citizen can't get a witness subpoenaed in a civil case, then I agree the USADA should not have such powers either.
But if he can, then I don't see why the USADA should not also have such powers.

Sounds like the answer to my question is definitely yes, and, more to the point, the Federal Arbitration Act gives the subpoena power to arbitrators.

Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) provides that "[t]he arbitrators ... or a majority of them, may summon in writing any person to attend before them or any of them as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book, record, document, or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case ...."

http://www.njlawblog.com/2006/10/ar...-a-subpoena-to-a-nonparty-outofstate-witness/

Now, is the 3-person panel at a USADA hearing an arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act?

 

[Epicycle]

Floyd lost his case, but he did manage to cast light on lab mistakes, and even got the arbs to throw out some of the charges against him. From my point of view, maybe a similar outcome would be best. LA loses, but in the process draws attention to the power USADA has. The question is, can this power be restrained without compromising its effectiveness.

All Floyd, and Tyler, showed was that Chris Campbell writes a poorly argued dissent. The lab was shown to have done quality work and even the result that was dismissed clearly showed what it was stated to have shown. The dismissal was just based on a technicality that I believe stemmed from the procedure being updated and the lab still using the old procedure, if I remember correctly. Don't believe the hype about all of this stuff.

 

[college]

You are an complete idiot. For example, NFL "journalists" re-vote a caught doper as "Rookie of the year".
Voter for the "Hall of fame" give a $hit of McGwire´s doping admission, and so on, and so on...

The top 5 major leagues are wayyy more of a joke than cycling. At least cycling is trying to clean up.

But you moron won´t understand it anyway. Dream on and insult USADA...

You can’t say that about someone in here. That is just an outrageous statement made when you disagree with someone’s comments. Why do you have to get personal?
That was not an insult to usada. It was an observation that is all it was. usada is not some org that is beyond reproach.

 

[Armanius]

Based on my professional experience, judges will send parties to arbitration when there is a clear agreement between the parties that their disputes will be adjudicated by an arbitrator as opposed to a court of law.

 

[Microchip]

Yep, yep and yep, all strengthening my prediction that he will not refile the lawsuit against the USADA in Federal court. They've got nothin'.

 

[Warhawk]

Sounds like the answer to my question is definitely yes, and, more to the point, the Federal Arbitration Act gives the subpoena power to arbitrators.



http://www.njlawblog.com/2006/10/ar...-a-subpoena-to-a-nonparty-outofstate-witness/

Now, is the 3-person panel at a USADA hearing an arbitrator under the Federal Arbitration Act?

From the USADA athlete handbook:

If USADA charges you with an anti-doping rule violation, you have the choice of accepting the recommended sanction or taking the case to a hearing before arbitrators who are members of both the American Arbitration Association and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, (AAA/CAS), with the right to appeal.

The decision by the AAA/CAS arbitrators may be appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

 The decision of CAS is final and binding on all parties and is not subject to further review or appeal.

The Federal Arbitration Act just establishes the basic legal status of arbitration. Arbitration is primarily a creation of contract. All the Act really does is establish how arbitration agreements and decisions should be treated by the courts - who the arbitrators are is determined by the parties to the agreement. If the parties agree to a particular arbitrator and method of arbitration, the law defers to the agreement.

 

[college]

Is it certain that usada sat in on the investigative interrogations of the witnesses against Lance? If that is the truth then usada has probably committed a crime themselves. They are not a government law enforcement agency are they? They are a private organization as I have been told here a few times. Usada has committed a crime.

 

[Warhawk]

Is it certain that usada sat in on the investigative interrogations of the witnesses against Lance? If that is the truth then usada has probably committed a crime themselves. They are not a government law enforcement agency are they? They are a private organization as I have been told here a few times. Usada has committed a crime.

Erm... what crime?

 

[Armanius]

Why would it be a crime for a private citizen (assuming that USADA is a private citizen) to sit-in in a government investigation?

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Is it certain that usada sat in on the investigative interrogations of the witnesses against Lance? If that is the truth then usada has probably committed a crime themselves. They are not a government law enforcement agency are they? They are a private organization as I have been told here a few times. Usada has committed a crime.

Is it a crime for a private citizen to sit in on Grand Jury investigative interrogations?

 

[DomesticDomestique]

Is it certain that usada sat in on the investigative interrogations of the witnesses against Lance? If that is the truth then usada has probably committed a crime themselves. They are not a government law enforcement agency are they? They are a private organization as I have been told here a few times. Usada has committed a crime.

Hey College,

Did your friend Lance Armstrong use performance enhancing drugs or methods in his career? Please reply with a yes or no answer.

 

[Merckx index]

All Floyd, and Tyler, showed was that Chris Campbell writes a poorly argued dissent. The lab was shown to have done quality work and even the result that was dismissed clearly showed what it was stated to have shown. The dismissal was just based on a technicality that I believe stemmed from the procedure being updated and the lab still using the old procedure, if I remember correctly. Don't believe the hype about all of this stuff.

As a scientist who followed the case closely, I came to my own conclusions.

If an ordinary citizen can't get a witness subpoenaed in a civil case, then I agree the USADA should not have such powers either.
But if he can, then I don't see why the USADA should not also have such powers.

I think the problem is that while USADA can subpoena witnesses, the defendant athletes can’t necessarily depose and cross-examine these same witnesses. They are not allowed the same access to them that USADA has. Thus an example that keeps coming up is that USADA could take a statement from a witness, then not make that witness available in court.

But consider another scenario:

Suppose I am a close friend of an elite athlete, he spends a lot of time over at my house. I can imagine WADA could justify coming to my house and doing a thorough search, on the grounds that I might be hiding PEDS or associated paraphernalia. Now if this were a criminal I was consorting with, the law would at least have to get a search warrant from a judge to allow this. But if I understand the situation, WADA doesn’t need this kind of order to search an athlete’s house, because the athlete, in signing with some national fed, has waived this particular constitutional right. And if I understand this article correctly, WADA could use the same rationale to search my house. Certainly WADA doesn’t need a search warrant to come over to my house if the athlete is there and they want to test him, and while they are there, what’s to stop them from poking around?

That is what I find a little scary. And it gets worse. Maybe they find no PEDs, nothing relevant to doping or my friend, but find something else that incriminates me in some completely different legal situation. They have obtained this evidence by means that would ordinarily not be allowed. But it seems that they might be allowed from a WADA search.

If I have misinterpreted/exaggerated the situation, someone call me on it. But even if I have, I think it’s fair to say that this is a very plausible future scenario.

 

[MacRoadie]

Conspiracy theory alert.

Wait. Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?

Someone alert Mel Gibson...

 

[ManInFull]

Is it certain that usada sat in on the investigative interrogations of the witnesses against Lance? If that is the truth then usada has probably committed a crime themselves. They are not a government law enforcement agency are they? They are a private organization as I have been told here a few times. Usada has committed a crime.

I am going to separate the process that's being executed by USADA from the testimony. Maybe Lance can prove that the USADA process screws the athlete. But, that doesn't make the the testimony from close associates of LA meaningless. Now does it? And in the end, as long as the public thinks he's a doper, he's a doper. Ask Mark McGuire.

 

[college]

Hey College,

Did your friend Lance Armstrong use performance enhancing drugs or methods in his career? Please reply with a yes or no answer.

No



Is seems to me that usada being around with the Federal government during the investigation is a violation of the grand jury process.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Now they will shape their PR for the fallout.

This is over. Lance is done.

Yep, he will refile, lose, then not request arbitration, and start a PR war about how it was all a foregone conclusion and his sanctions were a sham, and fight to keep the information that the USADA has from the public view.

He makes me want to vomit.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

There are reasons for everything that Lance’s legal team have done so far. They have a plan otherwise they would not be so good at their law practice. Just wait and see how this will unfold. It is only the first quarter of the game, not even have half time yet.
I read here in the small echo chamber that people expect Lance to fold. That is far from what is about to happen. Usada made default punishment against the doctors but why would those doctors waist any money trying to defend themselves in a procedure that is a witch hunt and kangaroo court?
“Knowledge is power, community is strength and positive attitude is everything”

Lol. Armstrong will never fold. I doubt that there is anyone here who thinks he will. He's a sociopath, IMHO, and they either bottom out in prison or end up broke living on the street or in a trailer park.

 

[Warhawk]

I think the problem is that while USADA can subpoena witnesses, the defendant athletes can’t necessarily depose and cross-examine these same witnesses. They are not allowed the same access to them that USADA has. Thus an example that keeps coming up is that USADA could take a statement from a witness, then not make that witness available in court.

2 points on that, plus an addendum.

First, arbitrators aren't bound by the federal rules of evidence. So, in an arbitration proceeding, you can get hearsay in if the neutral arbitrator considers it helpful to resolve the dispute.

Second, the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment only applies to criminal, not civil, proceedings.

That said, he might possibly have a due process argument there. I'd have to do some research on constitutional rights in arbitration proceedings.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yes, but Floyd's a bitter, proven liar...

...right up until today!

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Comment section is telling:

Rob roberts on Jul 10, 1:37 PM said:
I am happy for all the misfortune coming his way. What Armstrong did was hoist a huge lie pn all of us, and become a "hero" based on drugs. I wish my life were that easy, and I could just lie my way to making millions and becoming a role model. Sorry Lance, you are a doper AND a liar and I hate you mostly for being a bald faced liar.

Rob roberts on Jul 10, 1:41 PM said:
@Rob roberts:
And one more thing, Lance: my older brother absolutely worshipped you. He had a brain tumor and you were his absolute role model. i am glad he died of his brain tumor before discovering his hero was a fake, a liar and a scam


http://www.businessinsider.com/lanc...-to-lose-his-doping-case-2012-7#ixzz20FK1MwRZ

Ouch x1,000,000

 

[Armanius]

As a scientist who followed the case closely, I came to my own conclusions.

I think the problem is that while USADA can subpoena witnesses, the defendant athletes can’t necessarily depose and cross-examine these same witnesses. They are not allowed the same access to them that USADA has. Thus an example that keeps coming up is that USADA could take a statement from a witness, then not make that witness available in court.

In a typical AAA arbitration, if the arbitrators agree to it, both parties can depose the other parties' witnesses. However, it's not a matter of right like in court proceedings.

With USADA, it's my understanding that USADA would eventually have to provide the statements to the other side. But not as early as it would have to under court proceedings. Statements are also generally not admissible in a court of law unless it falls under an exception to the hearsay rule. However, in arbitration proceedings, the rules of evidence are very ... flexible.

 

[Oldman]

No



Is seems to me that usada being around with the Federal government during the investigation is a violation of the grand jury process.

OK Mr. GED (certificate pending); "seems to me that usada being around with the Federal government...". I see why you believe he didn't dope. l
The reason many here don't agree with you is the amount of exposure Lance had to other amateurs and pros before he was considered a good rider.
He doped then; just not scientifically and that's where his friendship with Ferrari comes into play. But you know that.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Is it certain that usada sat in on the investigative interrogations of the witnesses against Lance? If that is the truth then usada has probably committed a crime themselves. They are not a government law enforcement agency are they? They are a private organization as I have been told here a few times. Usada has committed a crime.

Please cite any background information or links you have to support this claim.

Susan

 

[Cimacoppi49]

From the USADA athlete handbook:



The Federal Arbitration Act just establishes the basic legal status of arbitration. Arbitration is primarily a creation of contract. All the Act really does is establish how arbitration agreements and decisions should be treated by the courts - who the arbitrators are is determined by the parties to the agreement. If the parties agree to a particular arbitrator and method of arbitration, the law defers to the agreement.

You might want to actually read the act. For example:


9 USC § 7 - Witnesses before arbitrators; fees; compelling attendance

The arbitrators selected either as prescribed in this title or otherwise, or a majority of them, may summon in writing any person to attend before them or any of them as a witness and in a proper case to bring with him or them any book, record, document, or paper which may be deemed material as evidence in the case. The fees for such attendance shall be the same as the fees of witnesses before masters of the United States courts. Said summons shall issue in the name of the arbitrator or arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be signed by the arbitrators, or a majority of them, and shall be directed to the said person and shall be served in the same manner as subpoenas to appear and testify before the court; if any person or persons so summoned to testify shall refuse or neglect to obey said summons, upon petition the United States district court for the district in which such arbitrators, or a majority of them, are sitting may compel the attendance of such person or persons before said arbitrator or arbitrators, or punish said person or persons for contempt in the same manner provided by law for securing the attendance of witnesses or their punishment for neglect or refusal to attend in the courts of the United States.

Whilst the parties have wide latitude to contract for the arbitration as they see fit, as a practical matter, the vast majority of arbitration hearings are brought pursuant the the rules and under the jurisdiction of the AAA.