USADA - Armstrong

[Orvieto]

Is the extension JUST for Lance, does Brunyeel have to stick with the original one ?

From the ABC link
"Johan Bruyneel, the manager on Armstrong's winning teams, who also has been charged, is not covered by the 30-day extension, even though USADA had consolidated their cases, USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner said.

Bruyneel still faces a Saturday deadline to challenge the charges or be sanctioned, Skinner said. Bruyneel, who manages the Radioshack-Nissan-Trek team, skipped this year's Tour de France because of the investigation."

So by Sunday, Bruyneel could be sanctioned.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Is there any chance that there is a "deal in progress." I felt like USADAs timeline was hugely in their favor. Why are they giving Lance anything, unless Lance is giving them something in return.

Maybe a little PR on their part. "We are very confident in our case and procedure, but if Mr. Armstrong feels the need to try to get this process taken to federal court, we will certainly allow him to do this. We want to be as fair and open as we can. We feel certain based on precedent that the complaint filed by Mr Armstrong is baseless, and our answer will provide the detail necessary to completely counter his claims, but we do want the judge to have time to adequately assess all of the mistakes and empty claims in Mr Armstrong's complaint."

 

[college]

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.

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.

If usada were to try and come into my house looking for information or evidence to incriminate a friend of mine then I would tell them to get lost. Maybe not in those specific words because I would use some other more appropriate curse words but I think it would get the point across. Just because someone is friends with a athlete does not give usada the rights of subpoena power (or it should not in my opinion). If usada does have that power then it should be taken away by the courts.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Maybe a little PR on their part. "We are very confident in our case and procedure, but if Mr. Armstrong feels the need to try to get this process taken to federal court, we will certainly allow him to do this. We want to be as fair and open as we can. We feel certain based on precedent that the complaint filed by Mr Armstrong is baseless, and our answer will provide the detail necessary to completely counter his claims, but we do want the judge to have time to adequately assess all of the mistakes and empty claims in Mr Armstrong's complaint."

Nicely done.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The thirty day extension gives Paddy McQuade the opportunity to think before he speaks again making himself look like the total fool that he is.

I feel fairly certain of two things:

1. Lance Armstrong is incapable of telling the truth about his doping past.

2. Pat McQuade will say something very stupid every time he holds a press conference.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

What happens if only one of the multiple witnesses claim that they were intimidated into giving testimony? Intimidated by having the Fed’s along with usada after them?

Only Armstrong has claimed they were intimidated. Your trolling is tiresome.

 

[Anonymous]

What happens if only one of the multiple witnesses claim that they were intimidated into giving testimony? Intimidated by having the Fed’s along with usada after them?

What if they weren't?

Prepare yourself.

 

[college]

Define "intimidated".

I mean, it's one (wrong) kind of intimidation if someone is sitting there who has made clear to the witness that if he doesn't say X, which is untrue, then they will behead every member of his family.

But I have no problem with "intimidation" of the kind where they're saying that if the reluctant witness begrudgingly admits to X, which is true, then they'll, for example, agree to not file charges against the witness.

If someone tells me that if I do not give up the goods on someone they will make it where I can never work again, and then I think that is not the way to go about getting information. It can cause or lead to false admissions and false evidence. It happens in law enforcement when they get someone to confess to a crime they never committed and crimes that someone else may have never committed. I do not know if this has happened here but some of the legal lawsuit information filed by the lawyers yesterday seems to indicate that could have happened.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I can't be bothered to read this right now, but it looks like it might be of interest.

"Lance Armstrong: Victim? The embattled cyclist says USADA is out to get him—using powers that it really shouldn’t have. Brian Alexander says he’s right."

http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/celebrities/Lance-Armstrong-Victim.html

I read it yesterday. It is filled with mistakes of fact, baseless suppositions, and ignorance of the law. I ran out of toilet paper yesterday, and printed out that article as back-up. Fortunately, I made it to the store before needing it...

 

[ManInFull]

If usada were to try and come into my house looking for information or evidence to incriminate a friend of mine then I would tell them to get lost. Maybe not in those specific words because I would use some other more appropriate curse words but I think it would get the point across. Just because someone is friends with a athlete does not give usada the rights of subpoena power (or it should not in my opinion). If usada does have that power then it should be taken away by the courts.

I understand that you want to argue over the process. The reality is there could be some valid points there. But do you really believe that every person who provided testimony lied about Lance? Every single one of them??

 

[Microchip]

Maybe a little PR on their part. "We are very confident in our case and procedure, but if Mr. Armstrong feels the need to try to get this process taken to federal court, we will certainly allow him to do this. We want to be as fair and open as we can. We feel certain based on precedent that the complaint filed by Mr Armstrong is baseless, and our answer will provide the detail necessary to completely counter his claims, but we do want the judge to have time to adequately assess all of the mistakes and empty claims in Mr Armstrong's complaint."

This is somewhat of a relief. Still, I don't like all this buying of time. Can Lance "disappear"? Flee to somewhere? Sounds like he's getting time to pack.

 

[Anonymous]

If someone tells me that if I do not give up the goods on someone they will make it where I can never work again, and then I think that is not the way to go about getting information. It can cause or lead to false admissions and false evidence. It happens in law enforcement when they get someone to confess to a crime they never committed and crimes that someone else may have never committed. I do not know if this has happened here but some of the legal lawsuit information filed by the lawyers yesterday seems to indicate that could have happened.

but some of the legal lawsuit information filed by the lawyers yesterday seems to indicate that could have happened.

Really? Which parts?

 

[MarkvW]

From the ABC link
"Johan Bruyneel, the manager on Armstrong's winning teams, who also has been charged, is not covered by the 30-day extension, even though USADA had consolidated their cases, USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner said.

Bruyneel still faces a Saturday deadline to challenge the charges or be sanctioned, Skinner said. Bruyneel, who manages the Radioshack-Nissan-Trek team, skipped this year's Tour de France because of the investigation."

So by Sunday, Bruyneel could be sanctioned.

Maybe if Lance doesn't take Johan under his litigation umbrella, Johan can write a new book. He could entitle it: "We Might as Well Tell the Truth."

 

[ChewbaccaD]

If someone tells me that if I do not give up the goods on someone they will make it where I can never work again, and then I think that is not the way to go about getting information. It can cause or lead to false admissions and false evidence. It happens in law enforcement when they get someone to confess to a crime they never committed and crimes that someone else may have never committed. I do not know if this has happened here but some of the legal lawsuit information filed by the lawyers yesterday seems to indicate that could have happened.

Dude, save the Simple Jack routine (flickr was a master at that...wait a minute...I smell something...) for your children. Nobody believes you could be this stupid and still form sentences.

 

[Hugh Januss]

If someone tells me that if I do not give up the goods on someone they will make it where I can never work again, and then I think that is not the way to go about getting information. It can cause or lead to false admissions and false evidence. It happens in law enforcement when they get someone to confess to a crime they never committed and crimes that someone else may have never committed. I do not know if this has happened here but some of the legal lawsuit information filed by the lawyers yesterday seems to indicate that could have happened.

Nice try, only replace "never work again" with "firmest punishment for your own transgressions". Oh yeah, and replace "give up the goods" with "tell the truth about the person who encouraged you to make those transgressions".
See how much more sense that makes now?

 

[college]

Only Armstrong has claimed they were intimidated. Your trolling is tiresome.

Claim's are made by both sides. usada and Lance.

The 30 day extension by usada is interesting. Maybe they are offering some type of deal? Lance will never take a deal he will not fold.

 

[Hugh Januss]

This is somewhat of a relief. Still, I don't like all this buying of time. Can Lance "disappear"? Flee to somewhere? Sounds like he's getting time to pack.

No problem, USADA can still take away the tour wins no matter where Lance is hiding.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Claim's are made by both sides. usada and Lance.

The 30 day extension by usada is interesting. Maybe they are offering some type of deal? Lance will never take a deal he will not fold.

Maybe they're giving him enough rope to hang himself.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Maybe they're giving him enough rope to hang himself.

He'll never fold but ultimately he will be made to bend (over).

 

[college]

Maybe a little PR on their part. "We are very confident in our case and procedure, but if Mr. Armstrong feels the need to try to get this process taken to federal court, we will certainly allow him to do this. We want to be as fair and open as we can. We feel certain based on precedent that the complaint filed by Mr Armstrong is baseless, and our answer will provide the detail necessary to completely counter his claims, but we do want the judge to have time to adequately assess all of the mistakes and empty claims in Mr Armstrong's complaint."

I notice no one is going to ask you for a link to the claims you are making in this post.
This small echo chamber would become almost empty if all the claims and assertions were required to have a link.
Usada probably have an idea that the judge is about to drop the Texas hammer on them.

 

[egtalbot]

Can USAC claim any of that exclusive jurisdiction goodness for itself in this case? USADA in this case is no more than an agent of USAC. Is USAC's antidoping program under the USOC's amateur sports Olympic Movement umbrella? If it is, then the Lance's case will die a quick death. If it isn't, then this case is just an arbitration agreement that an unhappy person is trying to void.

That is an interesting distinction. I'm not sure I know the answer. USAC's anti-doping program meets the standards required by the USOC. And I'm fairly certain that the status of NGB (which flows from USOC as per the Ted Stevens Act) means that anyone with a USAC license is subject to any applicable USOC regulations related to doping, the authority for which extends from the Act.

But what you're asking I think is how far the "exclusive jurisdiction" clause extends. And your main reason for asking has not to do specifically with this case, but with the implications of a possible court ruling for USADA's role in testing pro cyclists.

Unless there is some more obvious precedent or law, if I were the judge, I'd avoid clarifying that issue as much as possible.

 

[DomesticDomestique]

Maybe a little PR on their part. "We are very confident in our case and procedure, but if Mr. Armstrong feels the need to try to get this process taken to federal court, we will certainly allow him to do this. We want to be as fair and open as we can. We feel certain based on precedent that the complaint filed by Mr Armstrong is baseless, and our answer will provide the detail necessary to completely counter his claims, but we do want the judge to have time to adequately assess all of the mistakes and empty claims in Mr Armstrong's complaint."

It's PR and it's the truth, basically what USADA is saying is:

The facts are on our side, so we don't need to rush anything. The more time Judge Sparks has to review the case, the more he will see how there is no law or precedent to support Armstrong.

 

[KingsMountain]

I think this 30 day extension is the harbinger of a settlement between USADA and Armstrong. Here's why:

Armstrong can't win, but he has shown a willingness to try to get the USADA declared a state actor. There is a real chance that the USADA could be declared a state actor. That wouldn't help Armstrong much, because the case against him (primarily witness testimony) is presumably pretty strong, and a few constitutional protections won't change the verdict. But it would harm the USADA considerably in its general fight against doping. The USADA may well decide that it is better to settle with, say, one or two seasons taken away, and thus avoid the risk of being declared a state actor.

Armstrong is one of the few potential defendants who have the financial ability and motivation to pursue this sort of strategy. If USADA settles with Armstrong, they probably won't face a similar threat for quite some time.

 

[college]

Usada has granted an extension and have they given a proper reason for the extension? You know like a media release where they explain that the feel sorry for Lance and that they will in the spirit of transparency and fairness allow Lance time to give his answer to arbitration or not?

 

[goober]

It's PR and it's the truth, basically what USADA is saying is:

The facts are on our side, so we don't need to rush anything. The more time Judge Sparks has to review the case, the more he will see how there is no law or precedent to support Armstrong.

Let's see how this unfolds.