USADA - Armstrong

[dbrower]

One of Armstrong's argument to the court was that the UCI has the responsibility of deciding whether to pursue a doping case. They do not think the USADA on its own should make the decision to prosecute a cyclist.

Maybe a statement or a brief from the UCI claiming that there is no reason to open proceedings against Armstrong.

I'm not sure how the UCI is even relevant. One of the things the Armstrong filing was intentionally fuzzy about which was addressed by the USADA response was that his license is with USACycling, not the UCI, and USACycling has outsourced it's anti-doping to USADA in a way that pretty much precludes interference.

On another topic, reading the Del Moral bleat I got the sense that he was claiming he didn't contest because he didn't want to have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars on lawyers.

This gives him the fig leaf of never having seen the evidence, letting him deny it exists, figuring it has no practical effect on his life, since he's never really an employee of anything that cares about his status. (You might try to compare/constast this with Landis/Baker's response to the French hacking case, or that of the British kid who is being extradited to the US for file-sharing that is not-illegal in the UK.)

The conclusion I came to is that Del Moral didn't care if he was banned or not; those seeking his services will do so anyway. Ditto Ferrari and Celaya. Bruyneel couldn't stay in cycling with a ban, so he asked for a hearing, and Lance is stalling. Pepi seems to be the one who went down quick, with an actual employment problem.

-dB

 

[Benotti69]

Lance needs to be talking with someone over at Demand Media...

maybe he is trying but they dont want to talk to him

 

[DirtyWorks]

The conclusion I came to is that Del Moral didn't care if he was banned or not; those seeking his services will do so anyway. Ditto Ferrari and Celaya. Bruyneel couldn't stay in cycling with a ban, so he asked for a hearing, and Lance is stalling. Pepi seems to be the one who went down quick, with an actual employment problem.

-dB

All of them run a risk of some of the information being released as a part of a hearing process. How much? I'm not sure to be honest.

The dope slingers will still have customers. It seems clear to me The Hog is out of cycling. Typical career options after his time as a DS would be to work for the IOC, or maybe even locally for the UCI after a very long holiday.

 

[Benotti69]

All of them run a risk of some of the information being released as a part of a hearing process. How much? I'm not sure to be honest.

The dope slingers will still have customers. It seems clear to me The Hog is out of cycling. Typical career options after his time as a DS would be to work for the IOC, or maybe even locally for the UCI after a very long holiday.

Maybe he was angling for this all along. Imagine Bruyneel as head of UCI

 

[D-Queued]

I'm not sure how the UCI is even relevant. One of the things the Armstrong filing was intentionally fuzzy about which was addressed by the USADA response was that his license is with USACycling, not the UCI, and USACycling has outsourced it's anti-doping to USADA in a way that pretty much precludes interference.

On another topic, reading the Del Moral bleat I got the sense that he was claiming he didn't contest because he didn't want to have to spend 10's of thousands of dollars on lawyers.

This gives him the fig leaf of never having seen the evidence, letting him deny it exists, figuring it has no practical effect on his life, since he's never really an employee of anything that cares about his status. (You might try to compare/constast this with Landis/Baker's response to the French hacking case, or that of the British kid who is being extradited to the US for file-sharing that is not-illegal in the UK.)

The conclusion I came to is that Del Moral didn't care if he was banned or not; those seeking his services will do so anyway. Ditto Ferrari and Celaya. Bruyneel couldn't stay in cycling with a ban, so he asked for a hearing, and Lance is stalling. Pepi seems to be the one who went down quick, with an actual employment problem.

-dB

On the first point - taking it out of context - I agree the UCI is irrelevant.

On the second point, it would be interesting to get an update on the French hacking case.

On the third point, and likely stating the obvious, arguably Del Moral, Ferrair and Celaya just had their product validated through free, high-profile advertising.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

On the first point - taking it out of context - I agree the UCI is irrelevant.

On the second point, it would be interesting to get an update on the French hacking case.

On the third point, and likely stating the obvious, arguably Del Moral, Ferrair and Celaya just had their product validated through free, high-profile advertising.

Dave.

I think that you are making the point that the UCI is not irrelevant insofar the sanctions of Ferrari, del Moral, and Celaya are concerned. I agree. The sanctions are meaningless unless riders are prohibited from working with the sanctioned doctors. As far as I can see, such a prohibition could only originate from the UCI. (Is this correct?)

FatCat has already said something like he doesn't know what USADA is doing with regard to Ferrari, del Moral and Celaya. It doesn't look very hopeful that the UCI will take any steps to bar riders from working with Farm's erstwhile doping coconspirators.

 

[Franklin]

It seems clear to me The Hog is out of cycling. Typical career options after his time as a DS would be to work for the IOC, or maybe even locally for the UCI after a very long holiday.

*shrug* Why? I can easily see him returning as a DS/team manager. Just like Leinders can remain a team-doctor.

 

[Trailzz]

when will there be a decision as to when the Bruyneel hearing will move forward?

 

[thehog]

I came away with a much different take on the matter after reading the article . . . that being how did this ever even make it to the Spark's docket based on what is stated in it . . . so read between the lines and think about the ramifications of that.

Looking forward to RR, Berzin and Hog's thoughts on this.

Sparks is set to hear Armstrong's case against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency on Aug. 10 in the cyclist's hometown of Austin, Texas. Armstrong is challenging USADA's jurisdiction over him and has accused the agency of denying him due process.

Sparks recognizes the importance of the legal showdown, not only to Armstrong but to USADA, which was authorized by Congress to protect the integrity of Olympic sports. "There are not many small cases in federal court," the judge said.

But Sparks, 72, known for his colorful commentaries, has not lost his sense of humor.

"You caught me. I'm in the kitchen. I'm taking two Excedrin," Sparks told USA TODAY Sports on Thursday. "I'm just about ready to take my nap. Then they wake me back up at 1:30 (p.m.), and I go back to work."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycl...ce-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/56723406/1

 

[TourOfSardinia]

But Sparks, 72, known for his colorful commentaries, has not lost his sense of humor.

"You caught me. I'm in the kitchen. I'm taking two Excedrin," Sparks told USA TODAY Sports on Thursday. "I'm just about ready to take my nap. Then they wake me back up at 1:30 (p.m.), and I go back to work."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycl...ce-Armstrong-Tour-de-France-doping/56723406/1

Lol - unlikely he'll be caught napping!

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

FatCat has already said something like he doesn't know what USADA is doing with regard to Ferrari, del Moral and Celaya. It doesn't look very hopeful that the UCI will take any steps to bar riders from working with Farm's erstwhile doping coconspirators.

If I am correct it will be prohibited for USA cyclists to work with these three.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pozzato-charged-with-doping-offence-by-coni

That's what I make out of the 'literature'.

Taking all this 'prohibited to work with Ferrari or be banned' into LA context: why was LA able to ride the Giro? With Valverde they [CONI] took a completely other stance.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

USADA denies UCI request to take control of Armstrong/USPS doping proceedings

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ongUSPS-doping-proceedings.aspx#ixzz22VVg5JPT

 

[Kennf1]

USADA filed its motion to dismiss on July 19. Armstrong had 14 days to file response (August 2). That is a dealine imposed by the local rules of the Western District of Texas (in which Austin division sits), and is shorter than the standard 20-day response deadline under the federal rules.



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...lance-armstrong-doping-case-article-1.1128343

 

[sniper]

USADA filed its motion to dismiss on July 19. Armstrong had 14 days to file response (August 2). That is a dealine imposed by the local rules of the Western District of Texas (in which Austin division sits), and is shorter than the standard 20-day response deadline under the federal rules.



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...lance-armstrong-doping-case-article-1.1128343

Sweet! Pat looking like a complete fool here:

USADA responded to McQuaid's request with a July 26 letter telling McQuaid that he had a conflict of interest, given that the UCI managed blood and urine test results that are now central to USADA's case.

"Many could legitimately contend that UCI's involvement in the results management of the case would suffer from a structural concern sometimes referred to colloquially as ‘the fox guarding the henhouse’," wrote USADA's general counsel, Bill Bock. "In numerous instances the inability of a sports organization to effectively police doping within its sport has been noted."

USADA's letter also pointed out that McQuaid's letter "adopt(ed) some of the arguments now being advanced by Mr. Armstrong's lawyers and public relations consultants."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...g-doping-case-article-1.1128343#ixzz22VY5gT3w

 

[MacRoadie]

USADA’s CEO Travis T. Tygart has said the agency would not deviate from its investigation. "The USPS Doping Conspiracy was going on under the watch of UCI, so of course UCI and the participants in the conspiracy who cheated sport with dangerous performance enhancing drugs to win have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired,” he said.


Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ongUSPS-doping-proceedings.aspx#ixzz22Vb0CcOV

The UCI as part of the conspiracy. I don't think Travis will be getting a Christmas card from Pat this year.

 

[Kennf1]

Still can't find any links to the documents themselves. Not sure if Armstrong requested the extension earlier this week or today. Regardless, with a hearing set for next Friday, it's pretty crazy to bank on a federal court granting an extension on briefing under these circumstances.

 

[thehog]

"The UCI will not comment on the Armstrong case" but we'll send a sh**load of letters to take hold of the case and drop it in 5 years time.

I think the UCI just played its card... how does one explain the letters? when denying invovlment to the media.

I guess they don't have to.

 

[BroDeal]

Two theories here. 1) Armstrong is trying to get the UCI to stop the proceedings by not giving its okay to the USADA. 2) Armstrong is using the UCI to get all the evidence.

This is why JV should sack up and do something. The UCI does not want the public eye on its underhanded tactics.

 

[thehog]

Two theories here. 1) Armstrong is trying to get the UCI to stop the proceedings by not giving its okay to the USADA. 2) Armstrong is using the UCI to get all the evidence.

This is why JV should sack up and do something. The UCI does not want the public eye on its underhanded tactics.

Well obvious the UCI have already inferred to potential witnesses that they'll suffer penalties for their evidence.

JV is already talking about doing a part-time MBA with his time off.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The UCI as part of the conspiracy. I don't think Travis will be getting a Christmas card from Pat this year.

LOL!!!

This was my absolute favorite part.

Travis pulling out the stops using the truth! Hard to argue with that, eh lance?

 

[MarkvW]

USADA denies UCI request to take control of Armstrong/USPS doping proceedings

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ongUSPS-doping-proceedings.aspx#ixzz22VVg5JPT

This is so deliciously corrupt.

 

[MacRoadie]

USADA filed its motion to dismiss on July 19. Armstrong had 14 days to file response (August 2). That is a dealine imposed by the local rules of the Western District of Texas (in which Austin division sits), and is shorter than the standard 20-day response deadline under the federal rules.



http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...lance-armstrong-doping-case-article-1.1128343

Armstrong is arguing that he is allowed 14 days from the date of service under the Federal Rules, not 14 days from date of filing. They say their response is due Monday.

 

[MacRoadie]

Two theories here. 1) Armstrong is trying to get the UCI to stop the proceedings by not giving its okay to the USADA.

Travis "Honey Badger" Tygart don't give a **** what the UCI thinks...

 

[Anonymous]

This is so deliciously corrupt.

The hammer is falling in slow motion and no matter what they do the can't get their forehead(s) out of the way.

 

[Kennf1]

Armstrong is arguing that he is allowed 14 days from the date of service under the Federal Rules, not 14 days from date of filing. They say their response is due Monday.

Weird, because they would have been served electronically, simultaneously with the e-filing of the motion.