USADA - Armstrong

[MarkvW]

In terms of driving a settlement, the issue is not how state action helps Armstrong (not much) but how much it hurts the USADA. The USADA has to look to the future. The risk may be more than they wish to undertake.

If USADA lets it be known that they are soft on the state action issue, then USADA will be fed a steady diet of state action until they finally stand up and fight it.

 

[JA.Tri]

Huh you bet, it has been in place for ages but jurisdiction of this kind will be re-written and that under counter illegal scum like U$ADA, WA$A or CA$ alike who smoke ran like water over the last decade will stop to exist. The fight is on both sides of the Atlantic at present, with a similar case on the same merrits in the European court about to make waves as a ruling is imminent.

I noted this was quoted above...Ferrari???

You denigrate USADA, WADA and CAS. Why? What are the errors of those organisations/or establishment of same.

Please detail the merits of the case in question.

Ta

 

[Cimacoppi49]

I just got off the phone with a non-cycling lawyer friend who, unsolicited, expressed his outrage over what Armstrong is playing at in Federal court. He was so upset that he even remarked, "Kinda makes you hope he has a recurrence." Now, I told him I wouldn't wish that on anyone and he agreed his comment was a bit over the top. But, what this tells me is that Armstrong's reputation in the wider US market is sinking fast. Even my 86 year old mother who watches the news in a rehab center tells me Armstrong is a liar. If mom says it, you know the guy is done for.

 

[JA.Tri]

Having read "Lance's" amended submission my layperson assessment is:

*somewhat refined but still nebulous fog that has no merit.

My guess is: Federal Court will allow said fog to dissipate and dismiss well before the 30 days expires.

In fact I was somewhat surprised that it (the second submission) did not receive a similarly swift response (as the first submission) given its very questionable merits. However given judicial prudence and USADA's desire to be seen as more than fair, the total outcome (to date) makes perfect sense.

 

[Armanius]

Your earlier point was LA should test USADA by offering to snitch for full immunity.

I'm now not really sure what you are asking?

My apologies for being unclear. When responding to my original post, your post that USADA offered Armstrong the opportunity to talk appeared to be implying that USADA did offer Armstrong some type of deal. I was merely saying that the opportunity to talk doesn't mean that USADA had offered Armstrong anything -- other than the opportunity to talk. So no questions asked. Just a statement.

 

[ManInFull]

I just got off the phone with a non-cycling lawyer friend who, unsolicited, expressed his outrage over what Armstrong is playing at in Federal court. He was so upset that he even remarked, "Kinda makes you hope he has a recurrence." Now, I told him I wouldn't wish that on anyone and he agreed his comment was a bit over the top. But, what this tells me is that Armstrong's reputation in the wider US market is sinking fast. Even my 86 year old mother who watches the news in a rehab center tells me Armstrong is a liar. If mom says it, you know the guy is done for.

Well, I think it's difficult to determine what his reputation/popularity is without taking some kind of poll. There still seems to be tons of people on the various websites who are supporting him.

I really don't have a problem with him trying to prove that USADA doesn't have the authority to punish him. Since he has the resources to do this, that's fine. I'll only be upset if he somehow proves his case, receives no punishment, AND the testimonies are never made public.

 

[Square-pedaller]

1+ Very reasonable post. But i offer you an avatar bet: "College" will never reply with reasonable counter arguments. So my question to you is: Why you waste your time with such a long post to convince a fanboy? I also bet he´s no friend of Armstrong, just another blinded fanatic, who want´s to be friend w/Lance, only that he didn´t acknowledged that Armstrong cares a $hit about others, including his fans.

Why post reasonably rather than try and score points?

The people who post on here mostly already have strong views, and are unlikely to have their minds changed by anything that anyone else posts.
On the other hand, for every person who posts, my guess is that there are 10 or more lurkers who, particularly at the moment, have come on here to try and understand what is or isn't PR spin. Clever point-scoring posts are generally pretty ineffective at persuading such people, whereas cool reasonable posts are much more likely to sway them.

It doesn't even matter whether college answers.

 

[egtalbot]

If USADA lets it be known that they are soft on the state action issue, then USADA will be fed a steady diet of state action until they finally stand up and fight it.

+1. They'll file what they need to with the court.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

"I read Armstrong's new complaint and actually thought it had merit. It might have had more merit had it been submitted the first time, but still it makes some strong arguments.

I mean, as I read it he is stating essentially that USADA doesn't have jurisdiction for various reasons, and, further (this assertion notwithstanding), that he is being asked to submit his entire professional life, past, present, and future, as well as his livelihood, to an administrative procedure that was not designed for this purpose, but rather was designed for adjudicating positive doping tests."



The fact is the combination of laws in the US has resulted in the USOC and National Governing Bodies agreeing to an exclusive administrative law jurisdictional process to resolve doping issues, that has been approved by Congress. USOC recommended the creation of USADA and after it came into being contracted with USADA to not just deal with positive dope tests but to also investigate doping infractions. Therefore there does not have to be a positive test for USADA to iniate an investigation.

The rules used at such administrative hearings are ones formualted between the American Association of Arbitration and USADA. Those rules do address LA's complaints about getting disclosure, witness statements, subpoening witnesses etc. But they are discretionary rules and LA may have a good argument they do not fulfill the requirements of the Constitution.

It should make for an interesting case before the US courts for legal junkies, before we even get to an actual administrative hearing.

 

[JA.Tri]

Lance arguing his credibility versus his "accusers" I find irksome. On several occasions recently Lance has demonstrated his lack of credibility however little note seems to be made of this.

Much is made (has been made) in the media of Floyd: "liar" "discredited" ....and Tyler Hamilton: similarly. However Lance has equally (at least) demonstrated his ability to play at least as fast and loose with the truth. And I am not referring to the amount of PEDs consumed.

Cimacoppi49 refers to their Mum's assessment of Lance.

If C49's Mum Then... Why is the media not able/willing....to call Lance out..Loudly...at least on the observable falsehoods???

 

[Epicycle]

Given that USADA, and other Feds, have fought and won this silly argument multiple times I doubt USADA sees any risk from something that is little more then a talking point

Yeah they are just chipping away at his PR strategy. Once the court rules in USADA's favor it makes it a lot tougher for Lance to make any points crying about an unfair process after USADA bans him.

 

[Kender]

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?

yes they have given a proper reason

by granting the 30 day extension they have eliminated the need for a temporary injuction with was part of what the lawyers filed. The most they could have received through temporary injunction was 28 days extension.

They are not feeling sorry for anyone, they are allowing Judge Sparks the time to evaluate the complaint under a less time contrained manner.

If he then dismisses the complaint, Lance will have to tell USADA if he wants arbitration or not within the extension period.

If the complaint is upheld... not sure what happens but maybe trial by a jury of your peers? that seems to be what the lawyers were asking for

 

[MarkvW]

"I read Armstrong's new complaint and actually thought it had merit. It might have had more merit had it been submitted the first time, but still it makes some strong arguments.

I mean, as I read it he is stating essentially that USADA doesn't have jurisdiction for various reasons, and, further (this assertion notwithstanding), that he is being asked to submit his entire professional life, past, present, and future, as well as his livelihood, to an administrative procedure that was not designed for this purpose, but rather was designed for adjudicating positive doping tests."



The fact is the combination of laws in the US has resulted in the USOC and National Governing Bodies agreeing to an exclusive administrative law jurisdictional process to resolve doping issues, that has been approved by Congress. USOC recommended the creation of USADA and after it came into being contracted with USADA to not just deal with positive dope tests but to also investigate doping infractions. Therefore there does not have to be a positive test for USADA to iniate an investigation.

The rules used at such administrative hearings are ones formualted between the American Association of Arbitration and USADA. Those rules do address LA's complaints about getting disclosure, witness statements, subpoening witnesses etc. But they are discretionary rules and LA may have a good argument they do not fulfill the requirements of the Constitution.

It should make for an interesting case before the US courts for legal junkies, before we even get to an actual administrative hearing.

I haven't read the complaint yet, but if you relate it accurately then Armstrong is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to argue that Ted Stevens doesn't apply while at the same time arguing state action flowing from (in part) Ted Stevens.

 

[henryg]

I don't think there is any chance at all of the court finding any merit in the state actor claim. It would open a flood gate of consequences for thousands of organizations that receive government funding. Every doper with a lawyer and money to burn has tried some version of this against anti-doping authorities who busted them.

Vino tried to claim that his sanctions for doping where a “a clear violation of human rights.”

“In cycling nobody respects human rights,” said Vinokourov in an exclusive interview with Reuters. “The situation is now worse than any other sport. I hope the truth will be found and I am going to fight for it.”

I expect Armstrong will have about a much success as Vino.

I think Armstrong is resigned to the outcome and is just trying to spin it for the public that it was all an unfair witch hunt by a government bureaucrat. He needs to limit the damage to the brand so the cash machine doesn't implode. However he is used to being able to intimidate people in the cycling world and being able to have his way with corrupt UCI officials. He is way outside his bubble now. The courts are not having any patience for his antics.

 

[cathulu]

The problem with posters like College are that for example they are still going on about if USADA came to search my house yada yada. Debunkt and discredited already - too far behind the ball. College, it would probably be best for you to just walk away so others can have a rational discussion please. I am enjoying the discourse and you just throw a wrench in the works. Thanks to God that Polish is banned for now at least.

 

[JA.Tri]

Well, I think it's difficult to determine what his reputation/popularity is without taking some kind of poll. There still seems to be tons of people on the various websites who are supporting him.

I really don't have a problem with him trying to prove that USADA doesn't have the authority to punish him. Since he has the resources to do this, that's fine. I'll only be upset if he somehow proves his case, receives no punishment, AND the testimonies are never made public.

I understand the sentiment of testing the law. The discomfort I feel arises from the confirmation that:

* BIG money allows huge scope to evade reasonable examination
* whereas, generally, the poor just cop it on the chin.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Well, I think it's difficult to determine what his reputation/popularity is without taking some kind of poll. There still seems to be tons of people on the various websites who are supporting him.

I really don't have a problem with him trying to prove that USADA doesn't have the authority to punish him. Since he has the resources to do this, that's fine. I'll only be upset if he somehow proves his case, receives no punishment, AND the testimonies are never made public.

I did say"if." Still, I haven't seen Armstrong in and tv ads for Nissan or Ultra beer of late. Anyone know what his speaking bookings are these days?

 

[Mr.DNA]

There still seems to be tons of people on the various websites who are supporting him..

We don't know how many are shills planted there by the likes of BazaarVoice. I take them all with a large grain of salt.

 

[sagard]

Lance is now in the same position as Pete Rose the baseball player. He can go down the road Rose traveled with the same result. Or he can come to some agreement where he admits nothing, but accepts some sanctions.

Maybe they can take his 2005 TDF and give it to Landis as a justified parting shot.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

Lance arguing his credibility versus his "accusers" I find irksome. On several occasions recently Lance has demonstrated his lack of credibility however little note seems to be made of this.

Much is made (has been made) in the media of Floyd: "liar" "discredited" ....and Tyler Hamilton: similarly. However Lance has equally (at least) demonstrated his ability to play at least as fast and loose with the truth. And I am not referring to the amount of PEDs consumed.

Cimacoppi49 refers to their Mum's assessment of Lance.

If C49's Mum Then... Why is the media not able/willing....to call Lance out..Loudly...at least on the observable falsehoods.

Because unlike most of the press, my mom has spent her adult life standing up to liars and vermin like the John Birch Society. The press is not interested in truth. The owners might be embarrassed.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

The problem with posters like College are that for example they are still going on about if USADA came to search my house yada yada. Debunkt and discredited already - too far behind the ball. College, it would probably be best for you to just walk away so others can have a rational discussion please. I am enjoying the discourse and you just throw a wrench in the works. Thanks to God that Polish is banned for now at least.

I've been away for a few months. Can someone PM me and tell me what happened to Polish. Was he outed in Fabiani's pit?

 

[BroDeal]

I've been away for a few months. Can someone PM me and tell me what happened to Polish. Was he outed in Fabiani's pit?

His three thousandth troll post was the troll that broke the camel's back.

 

[egtalbot]

Lance is now in the same position as Pete Rose the baseball player. He can go down the road Rose traveled with the same result. Or he can come to some agreement where he admits nothing, but accepts some sanctions.

Why would USADA agree to that?

 

[snackattack]

... Vino tried to claim that his sanctions for doping where a “a clear violation of human rights.”

No he didn't pursue it !

There is a explosive case in the European court fore a while now and is about to come to some kind of procedural first conclusion, which will then be presented to the state in harms to act on it. In this case the Netherlands. Never has any athlete brought a doping related case this far into the EHRM and it is the first time since the Bosman ruling an athlete has gotten a sports related issue into the courts grand chamber.

 

[MarkvW]

yes they have given a proper reason

by granting the 30 day extension they have eliminated the need for a temporary injuction with was part of what the lawyers filed. The most they could have received through temporary injunction was 28 days extension.

They are not feeling sorry for anyone, they are allowing Judge Sparks the time to evaluate the complaint under a less time contrained manner.

If he then dismisses the complaint, Lance will have to tell USADA if he wants arbitration or not within the extension period.

If the complaint is upheld... not sure what happens but maybe trial by a jury of your peers? that seems to be what the lawyers were asking for

USADA continues unless the federal judge stops it by court order. The complaint stops nothing. Look at the complaint as a ticket into the courtroom. The complaint gives you permission to ask the judge to order stuff. If your complaint gets dismissed, then you lose your ticket to ask for stuff. That is where USADA is going next. USADA wants the judge to revoke Lance's ticket into his court.

If USADA loses the motion to dismiss, then Lance gets to ask for orders. The judge decides if the facts warrant the issuance of the orders. If nobody is arguing about what the facts are, the judge just figures out whether the order should enter. It people are arguing about facts that matter in the case, then the judge has to have those facts figured out before he enters his order. In that case, sometimes the facts are determined by the judge; other times by a jury. When it comes to requests for injunctions (things like "Make 'em stop!"), usually the judge decides disputed factual questions, but not always.