USADA - Armstrong

[Berzin]

I am increasingly of the opinion that he [Armstrong] will fold, not fight

He has until this coming Saturday, so we may get the news sooner rather than later.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I found this on Beginner Triathlete. I LOLed.

...It was bad enough that one of the DJ's on a Christian radio station down here was saying people should cut-up the yellow bracelets.

Jeebus! Even the Bible thumpers are going after him.

Well, it's not just the Bible thumpers. It's anyone who wants to see justice served.

 

[Iker_Baqueiro]

Who is this Celaya character? I don't recall his name being attached to the original USADA charging document. I thought it was only five people-Armstrong, Bruyneel, Ferrari, del Moral and Marti.

When and where did this other guys' name pop up?

Former Doctor of ONCE, US POSTAL and currently RadioShack.

http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo/espanoles-implicados-proceso-armstrong/20120614dasdascic_3/Tes

 

[Maxiton]

Hmmm, if the CAS route is an option, and he goes that way, does he still have the ability to perjure himself?

He always has that ability.

He isn't the first person to claim arbitration is unfair because of the process not conforming to constitutional standards for court proceedings...and the courts have been pretty clear on their opinion of that argument...they rule in favor of arbitration. And Mr. Armstrong seems to think that because he is rich, and because the number of zeroes after his net worth are greater than most, the judge will tend to believe his suggestion that HIS due process claims are much more vital. From reading the judge's initial dismissal, I am unconvinced he will give that argument much weight. Juries may be swayed by attorneys putting on a Chewbacca Defense, but judges are much more critical.

Then again, trying to figure out a court's ruling prior to them ruling is always a dodgy proposition. You just never know.

Yeah, that's way far reaching, not to be argumentative. But why go to such a long stretch?

It is very simple. This could only happen if the judge agrees that the USADA is a state actor OR USADA has no jurisdiction. Outside of that, there are no grave circumstances that warrant constitutional protections of due process. It is normal outcomes of the arbitration process. (see: Marion Jones, Tammy Thomas)

If you go back a few pages you will see my explanation of due process as it applies to arbitration.

This agreement would have to be so specious with Lance, meaning it was different than every other professional athlete who signs their license agreement which contains the arbitration clause.

The mountains he would have to jump to get a judge to go against years of precedent on arbitration proceedings is well, bigger than anything he has ever climbed. There are some very small outs, but that relies on the judge making several adverse rulings on diversity jurisdiction...don't see it happening.


He may order a very temporary injunction to hear more on the merits of the pleading from both sides, but more than likely come back to USADA and force an arbitration decision from Lance. Either go or don't and take whatever sanction that is meted out.

I see what you're saying. And that pretty much concurs with what ChewbaccaD was saying.

So the judge is going to respect and defer to the arbitration process in all cases, especially in light of precedent, unless a really compelling argument can be made for not doing so; and such an argument would necessarily be so novel that probably nothing Armstrong can come up with will meet the standard. Does that pretty much sum it up?

 

[PedalPusher]

Have you figured out how the Ted Stevens Act applies to USA Cycling in this instance?

I wasn't able to piece that together when I looked at it.

USADA from what I read is the anti doping agency for USOC/WADA in the US. USA Cycling falls under USOC because of it's amateur status and legislation I believe. Have not had much time to suss it out.

But I found this

Athletes subject to USADA testing and that fall under the organization's jurisdiction include:

Any Athlete who is a member or license holder of a sport National Governing Body (NGB)

Any Athlete participating at an Event or Competition sanctioned by the USOC or an NGB or participating at an Event or Competition in the United States sanctioned by an International Federation (IF)

Any foreign Athlete who is present in the United States

Any other Athlete who has given his/her consent to Testing by USADA or who has submitted a Whereabouts Filing to USADA or an IF within the previous 12 months and has not given his or her NGB and USADA written notice of retirement

Any Athlete who has been named by the USOC or an NGB to an international team or who is included in the USADA Registered Testing Pool (“USADA RTP”) or is competing in a qualifying event to represent the USOC or NGB in international competition

Any United States Athlete or foreign Athlete present in the United States who is serving a period of Ineligibility on account of an anti-doping rule violation and who has not given prior written notice of retirement from all sanctioned competition to the applicable NGB and USADA, or the applicable foreign anti-doping agency or foreign sport association

Any Athlete USADA is Testing under authorization from the USOC, an NGB, IF, any NADO, WADA, the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”), the International Paralympic Committee (“IPC”) or the organizing committee of any Event or Competition.

 

[TubularBills]

Just wanted to pop in here and give props to USADA for swinging the flyswatter with full force at Del Moral, Pepe and Ferrari and hit them flat. Let's hope they do the same to the dopers left in this case.

+++++++++1

 

[PedalPusher]

More

USADA is responsible for the results management aspect of drug testing for athletes that fall under their jurisdiction. Results management includes communicating the results of drug tests with athletes as well as the adjudication of athletes suspected of committing an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV), which can be the result of a positive drug test, as well as other methods including all forms of credible evidence. According to the Code, an ADRV consists of the following:

The presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample. (positive test)

Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or a prohibited method.

Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification as authorized in applicable anti-doping rules or otherwise evading sample collection.

Violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for Out-of-Competition Testing including failure to file required whereabouts information and missed tests which are declared based on rules which comply with the International Standard for Testing. Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures within an eighteen-month period as determined by anti-doping organizations with jurisdiction over the Athlete shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation. Click here for more information on whereabouts.

Tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control.

Possession of prohibited substances and prohibited methods.

Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method.

Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an anti-doping rule violation or any attempted anti-doping rule violation.

When evidence meeting one or more of the above violations is found, an independent anti-doping review board will make the recommendation whether USADA can move forward with sanctions on an athlete. Athletes can either accept or challenge the sanction through an established legal process. In the United States athletes can take a case before an arbitration panel with a final appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.


Soooooo, when you look at the above post and the rest of the information in this..... claiming USADA has no jurisdiction is like saying Vegas has no prostitutes

 

[sartain]

The kid who got 5th has filed a Federal case and wants his 4th place #unconstitutional

This is why I LOVE THE CLINIC. Outsiders can say what they will about those of us that frequent and/or post here, but there are some really sharp minds posting here and looking at all angles. I wonder if LA actually has been reading here lately . . . if so, 1. What do you think is blood pressure is when he is done reading, and 2. How much whiskey do you think it takes to calm him down?

 

[D-Queued]

The consensus appears to be that the strongest case Armstrong has relates to domain.

Really?

This is absurd.

The United States (as a signatory to the Copenhagen treaty and through both the USOC and the U.S. Paralympics - United States Olympic Committee), the USADA and the UCI have all signed the WADA code. All did so a long time ago - well before Lance stole all his TdF titles.

Even way back then, the Code included retroactive penalties.

Even Bill Stapleton has testified (SCA Arbitration) about the jurisdiction of WADA (see earlier post).

The Code, and the Nation members of UNESCO understood long ago about the potential legal conflict. So, they created and adopted an international treaty.

Many governments cannot be legally bound by a non-governmental document such as the World Anti-Doping Code (Code). Accordingly, governments prepared the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport, a political document through which they signalled their intention to formally recognize and implement the Code through an international treaty. The Copenhagen Declaration was finalized in 2003.

That is all the good judge needs to know.

Lance may think otherwise, and he may be a professional triathlete and a cancer Jesus. Even with these important credentials, and no matter how much he paid Ferrari or even donated to Hein at the UCI, Lance is still not bigger than the sport of cycling or the United States of America.

It is true that news sometimes travels more slowly in Texas, and Texas may be its own country within a country. Thus, it is of some relevance that the following announcement on who had signed the Code was made just down the street from Lance's house in San Antonio:

"...On this occasion, the remaining National Olympic Committes (NOCs) from the Americas who had not signed the Code did so. As of April 27, 185 out of the 202 existing NOCs in the world have accepted the Code...."

The Code.Rocks.Lance's.World.

Dave.

 

[DomesticDomestique]

This is why I LOVE THE CLINIC. Outsiders can say what they will about those of us that frequent and/or post here, but there are some really sharp minds posting here and looking at all angles. I wonder if LA actually has been reading here lately . . . if so, 1. What do you think is blood pressure is when he is done reading, and 2. How much whiskey do you think it takes to calm him down?

He's reading. @juanpelota commented to that effect.

Hey Lance, deep down you know what a piece of $h!t you are, that you never earned anything in your life and that you stole from cancer victims. Fuc% You!

 

[MarkvW]

USADA from what I read is the anti doping agency for USOC/WADA in the US. USA Cycling falls under USOC because of it's amateur status and legislation I believe. Have not had much time to suss it out.

But I found this

Athletes subject to USADA testing and that fall under the organization's jurisdiction include:

Any Athlete who is a member or license holder of a sport National Governing Body (NGB)

Any Athlete participating at an Event or Competition sanctioned by the USOC or an NGB or participating at an Event or Competition in the United States sanctioned by an International Federation (IF)

Any foreign Athlete who is present in the United States

Any other Athlete who has given his/her consent to Testing by USADA or who has submitted a Whereabouts Filing to USADA or an IF within the previous 12 months and has not given his or her NGB and USADA written notice of retirement

Any Athlete who has been named by the USOC or an NGB to an international team or who is included in the USADA Registered Testing Pool (“USADA RTP”) or is competing in a qualifying event to represent the USOC or NGB in international competition

Any United States Athlete or foreign Athlete present in the United States who is serving a period of Ineligibility on account of an anti-doping rule violation and who has not given prior written notice of retirement from all sanctioned competition to the applicable NGB and USADA, or the applicable foreign anti-doping agency or foreign sport association

Any Athlete USADA is Testing under authorization from the USOC, an NGB, IF, any NADO, WADA, the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”), the International Paralympic Committee (“IPC”) or the organizing committee of any Event or Competition.

Thanks for taking the time.

I think there is a contractual chain from UCI to USA Cycling and USA Cycling to USADA.

I haven't sorted out the connection to USOC that gets me to Ted Stevens (and I think that there needs to be a USOC connection to get to Ted Stevens).

That's where I got stuck.

 

[Iker_Baqueiro]

he's reading. @juanpelota commented to that effect.

Hey lance, deep down you know what a piece of $h!t you are, that you never earned anything in your life and that you stole from cancer victims. Fuc% you!

+2^32 !!! Lol !!!

 

[PedalPusher]

If these guys are doping (for the fanboys and deniers who think the peloton is clean) then surely the world tour pros are not!


http://www.usada.org/sanctions

 

[ChewbaccaD]

He always has that ability.





I see what you're saying. And that pretty much concurs with what ChewbaccaD was saying.

So the judge is going to respect and defer to the arbitration process in all cases, especially in light of precedent, unless a really compelling argument can be made for not doing so; and such an argument would necessarily be so novel that probably nothing Armstrong can come up with will meet the standard. Does that pretty much sum it up?

His strongest argument is that the USADA has acted as a "state actor" and because of that must conform to the due process provided any defendant. And this hinges to me on whether the judge will see their actions in relation to the Federal probe as somehow a continuance following the decision not to proceed, or their participation prior to that decision as being so intertwined in some way that in this instance, they have become a state actor. That would effectively end doping enforcement in the US unless the ruling (which would obviously be appealed) were extremely narrow. Here is the problem there, once it isn't a private process conducted by private statutes, it becomes an issue for courts to decide, and there are many reasons a judge would not want to set that precedent. Judges are well aware that bodies geared to specific issues (specialization) are much more adept than a federal court in determining issues within their scope. It will lead to MORE cases in federal court, the prospect of which most no judge wants to create, and several other reasons.

For that reason, I think LA is going to suffer another defeat. But again, I wouldn't actually bet real money on either position right now...but then again, I am well aware of my penchant for misreading gambling situations...so I don't bet on much of anything.

 

[red_flanders]

Please refrain from using swear words or special characters to beat the software. Further violations will result in sanctions. Thanks, this is not an adult only site or forum.

 

[PedalPusher]

Thanks for taking the time.

I think there is a contractual chain from UCI to USA Cycling and USA Cycling to USADA.

I haven't sorted out the connection to USOC that gets me to Ted Stevens (and I think that there needs to be a USOC connection to get to Ted Stevens).

That's where I got stuck.

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) is a non-profit organization that serves as the National Olympic Committee (NOC) and National Paralympic Committee (NPC) for the United States and coordinates the relationship between the United States Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency and various international sports federations.

Under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, the Committee is chartered under Title 36 of the United States Code. Despite this federal mandate it receives no continuous financial assistance from the U.S. government. As a non-profit organization it competes with other charities for private contributions.

 

[PedalPusher]

Please refrain from using swear words or special characters to beat the software. Further violations will result in sanctions. Thanks, this is not an adult only site or forum.

PG-13? I mean really? 4 year olds are reading this? I've yet to hear my teenagers not use slang. Just words as I tell them, just use it correctly and at the appropriate times.

Not a combative question, but are you an actual moderator? I only ask because I see no designation as such.

 

[lean mean &green]

If these guys are doping (for the fanboys and deniers who think the peloton is clean) then surely the world tour pros are not!


http://www.usada.org/sanctions

...but USADA only pursues cases for publicity against famous people like lance.

how great will it be to see LA and JB at the top of that list soon?

 

[TubularBills]

if lance wins this case, would doping in US cycling become, de facto, legal?

Um... isn't it already? I think we have a pretty solid seven year precedent, according to the 2005 SCA arbitration result...

i.e. it's ok to dope as long as you win.

Just make sure you read the fine print and have a league of loyal retainers.

 

[D-Queued]

RE: "College" (if it really is him)

from The Guardian.

"If Lance senses the slightest hint of disloyalty or lack of dedication, you're gone. 'The world is black-and-white to him,' says {name witheld}, 36, an old friend who now sells insurance for a living. 'And it's a lot easier to make decisions when it's that way."

..... Armstrong was astonished that {name witheld} had stood up for him, and rekindled their friendship by flying him over for the last week of the Tour.



Wow, does anyone expect this guy to be unbiased? "Loyalty" bought & paid for....

This is an excellent and intriguing issue.

With the news of Ferrari’s acceptance of the ban, and the latest lame filing from Lance, sooner or later a few people should be getting their wrongful dismissal suits prepared:

“Arbitration
Transcript of Proceedings
January 16, 2006
…

Direct Examination By Mr. Herman for the Claimants (representing Lance Armstrong/Tailwind Sports)

…

Q. Let me ask you about the circumstances, was – I’m going to change topics here tiwh you to some ex-employees, okay. Mr. Anderson, did he leave voluntarily or was he terminated?

A (Bill Stapleton). He was terminated.

Q. Ms O’Reilly?

A. She was terminated by the Tailwind.

Q. Frankie Andreu?

A. He was essentially terminated by Tailwind as well.

Q. Stephen Swart?

A. He was terminated."

Among other statutes, arguably Sarbanes-Oxley (corporate fraud whistleblowers) may even apply here.

Dave.

 

[D-Queued]

Thanks for taking the time.

I think there is a contractual chain from UCI to USA Cycling and USA Cycling to USADA.

I haven't sorted out the connection to USOC that gets me to Ted Stevens (and I think that there needs to be a USOC connection to get to Ted Stevens).

That's where I got stuck.

See above post. They all (UCI, USADA, USOC...) signed the Code, and the US Government agreed to the Copenhagen treaty.

Dave.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

One other thing that will limit Lance's argument that the USADA is a "state actor," he didn't really provide ANY proof of his assertion...and the specificity required means that conclusory statements such as "They are a state actor because we say so" with NO evidence to back up their assertions fails on the same grounds the judge dismissed the first motion: SCOTUS set a standard that says that mere conclusory statements means you don't get a federal case. You need something more than an assertion. And when you read Twombly, (the situation involved price fixing following a meeting of several corporations, and actions that CLEARLY looked concerted on their face), you see the court saying "you don't have a case just because you say there were illegal concerted actions following the meeting, even though the corporations DID act in almost the exact same manner after that meeting. You need something more than just saying 'well, that's obviously concerted action based on their actions following the meeting.' If you don't have something more, then you have no case."

If you look at the charges by Lance, he provides NOTHING to prove his assertion that the USADA is acting as a state actor (a status they didn't have prior to their actions with the federal probe) following the federal probe. He SAYS they are, but that is the PRECISE thing SCOTUS said just doesn't cut the mustard. Not to mention that there are some District Court judges who have tried to circumvent this ruling, and they have been smacked down on the appeals court level. That being the case, I get the feeling that this judge will look at the complaint in the manner required by the standard set in Iqbal/Twombly and throw it out based on the fact that there is NOTHING that distinguishes this case from those.

I have to go to bed.

 

[red_flanders]

Not a combative question, but are you an actual moderator? I only ask because I see no designation as such.

Yes, I am. First rule in the forum list:

• No foul language, nor circumventing forum "censors" in order to do so

The rest are in my sig line. No problem with the question, but better asked in PM going forward. Thanks.

 

[PedalPusher]

One other thing that will limit Lance's argument that the USADA is a "state actor," he didn't really provide ANY proof of his assertion...and the specificity required means that conclusory statements such as "They are a state actor because we say so" with NO evidence to back up their assertions fails on the same grounds the judge dismissed the first motion: SCOTUS set a standard that says that mere conclusory statements means you don't get a federal case. You need something more than an assertion. And when you read Twombly, (the situation involved price fixing following a meeting of several corporations, and actions that CLEARLY looked concerted on their face), you see the court saying "you don't have a case just because you say there were illegal concerted actions following the meeting, even though the corporations DID act in almost the exact same manner after that meeting. You need something more than just saying 'well, that's obviously concerted action based on their actions following the meeting.' If you don't have something more, then you have no case."

If you look at the charges by Lance, he provides NOTHING to prove his assertion that the USADA is acting as a state actor (a status they didn't have prior to their actions with the federal probe) following the federal probe. He SAYS they are, but that is the PRECISE thing SCOTUS said just doesn't cut the mustard. Not to mention that there are some District Court judges who have tried to circumvent this ruling, and they have been smacked down on the appeals court level. That being the case, I get the feeling that this judge will look at the complaint in the manner required by the standard set in Iqbal/Twombly and throw it out based on the fact that there is NOTHING that distinguishes this case from those.

I have to go to bed.

From what I read, USADA gets PART of their funding through grant by Office of National Drug Control Policy and the rest is through contracts with sport organizations. Receiving a grant from the government doesn't make one a state actor for legal definition. I almost wonder if Lance sat down and wrote the pleading himself.

 

[TubularBills]

Constitutional rights to due process only apply to arbitration if it was a state action.

When you agree to have disputes settled by an arbitration proceeding in your contract, you essentially waive due process rights. It is considered a private action with no constitutional protections, even if it was found to violate most core values of due process.

Basically some forms of arbitration (monetary awards/class action) require only notice and opportunity of hearing and adequacy of representation requirements overseen by a judge.

A party may ask a court to confirm an arbital award, which is then considered a judgement, and sometimes a judge may vacate or modify the award based on specific circumstances. But it does not review the merits of the underlying award based on whether due process was accorded to the parties.

Winner!!!!

Can't wait to read the eloquent and entertaining (scathing) dismissal!

LA shaking the wrong tree.