USADA - Armstrong

[D-Queued]

No need for a Wiki page, or a "TrustBut" type page: there's already one available, called PACER.

Funny (but I forgot my password... )

Dave.

 

[BroDeal]

You miss my point. I agree with your post.

My point is that FatCat may have a serious conflict of interest with the UCI. It does not appear to be in the UCI's, repeat UCI's, interest to squelch the Lance hearing process at the expense of the long term goal of fostering the perception of an independent and aggressive antidoping policy. It may very well be in Hein-Pat's interest to do so.

The problem with this is that the UCI has a very long history of damaging its own credibility. It seems to be one of McQuaid's job duties. What reason was there to pay $500K for the farscical Vrijman report? What reason was there for refusing to let the USADA test the Tour of California or the French to have a hand in TdF testing? What reason was there for McQuaid's many public statements in support of Armstrong? For a long time it has been in the UCI's best interest to keep to itself and let Armstrong twist in the wind.

Either McQuaid-Verbruggen are worried about information that might come out or they are so focused on maintaining credibility of the past decade that they are willing to endanger the future. I don't see that McQuaid could have much personal culpability; he can easily blame everything on a time before he was president. Verbruggen still pulling the strings is an obvious explanation. But I suspect that the UCI bureaucracy always has a kneejerk reaction to fight against any hint of scandal, even if it would be better off ignoring the problem.

 

[D-Queued]

This is funny: non-Texas law firm explaining how Armstrong's lawyers blew the 14-day filing deadline under local federal rules in Texas.


http://www.bouldercriminallawadviso...why-strict-compliance-with-local-is-critical/

"Such a miscalculation could expose Armstrong’s lawyers to a claim of legal malpractice."

Finally, something we can all agree with Lance on.

Dave.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

UCI President Patrick McQuaid wrote July 13 to USADA, claiming the Switzerland-based cycling group has jurisdiction and USADA does not.

"The UCI is the only test results management authority, as these are UCI tests," McQuaid said in his letter.

McQuaid said that because Armstrong has not been provided the evidence, "UCI does not feel comfortable" with the USADA case, "especially if such things which it finds problematic in terms of due process and even in terms of ethics are pushed through by pleading the rules of the UCI.

"This is particularly worrisome in this case because it is said to be based on witness statements only," McQuaid said. "UCI has no other information than that potential witnesses were approached by USADA and that advantages were promised in return for incriminating statements. This is problematic as well."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-03-15-30-19

This is a complete `about face' from the UCI's prior public statements regarding this case within the past month," USADA general counsel William Bock III wrote in a 14-page letter to McQuaid on July 26. "You were correct in the first media statements that you made in which you opined that USADA is the correct results management authority and can impose sanctions in these cases."

It is possible that UCI sent the request to be able to say to Lance, 'we tried and got told to go f.. ourselves so, buddy....you're on your own'.

The irony is that the whole world believes that their is a corrupt relationship between the UCI has and Lance, and this request will strengthen that belief. Maybe in this case, McQuaid is dumb as a fox...?...and tired of the whole thing?

 

[Kennf1]

"Such a miscalculation could expose Armstrong’s lawyers to a claim of legal malpractice."

Finally, something we can all agree with Lance on.

Dave.

I read in another article just posted that Sparks has given Armstrong until the end of today to file the response. I hope it's proofread.

 

[Anonymous]

UCI President Patrick McQuaid wrote July 13 to USADA, claiming the Switzerland-based cycling group has jurisdiction and USADA does not.

"The UCI is the only test results management authority, as these are UCI tests," McQuaid said in his letter.

McQuaid said that because Armstrong has not been provided the evidence, "UCI does not feel comfortable" with the USADA case, "especially if such things which it finds problematic in terms of due process and even in terms of ethics are pushed through by pleading the rules of the UCI.

"This is particularly worrisome in this case because it is said to be based on witness statements only," McQuaid said. "UCI has no other information than that potential witnesses were approached by USADA and that advantages were promised in return for incriminating statements. This is problematic as well."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-03-15-30-19

This is a complete `about face' from the UCI's prior public statements regarding this case within the past month," USADA general counsel William Bock III wrote in a 14-page letter to McQuaid on July 26. "You were correct in the first media statements that you made in which you opined that USADA is the correct results management authority and can impose sanctions in these cases."

Hammer meets nail.

"By our count, of the 21 podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005, only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation. Yet, only a single one of these riders had a positive test with the UCI."

 

[BroDeal]

UCI President Patrick McQuaid wrote July 13 to USADA, claiming the Switzerland-based cycling group has jurisdiction and USADA does not.

"The UCI is the only test results management authority, as these are UCI tests," McQuaid said in his letter.

McQuaid said that because Armstrong has not been provided the evidence, "UCI does not feel comfortable" with the USADA case, "especially if such things which it finds problematic in terms of due process and even in terms of ethics are pushed through by pleading the rules of the UCI.

"This is particularly worrisome in this case because it is said to be based on witness statements only," McQuaid said. "UCI has no other information than that potential witnesses were approached by USADA and that advantages were promised in return for incriminating statements. This is problematic as well."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-03-15-30-19

This is a complete `about face' from the UCI's prior public statements regarding this case within the past month," USADA general counsel William Bock III wrote in a 14-page letter to McQuaid on July 26. "You were correct in the first media statements that you made in which you opined that USADA is the correct results management authority and can impose sanctions in these cases."

The reasoning of why the UCI should have control seems easy to defeat to me. There are two theories in Amrstrong's filing.

The first is that Landi's letter was sent to USA Cycling before it was sent to the USADA, so USA Cycling and by extension the UCI is the body that discovered information that led to non-analytical proceedings. This is easy defeated by the USADA pointing to information that it gathered before Landis. If JV can be believed, he talked to the USADA in 2004.

The second is that the UCI has authority for results management, including sanctions based on tests. This presumes that the USADA case is built on failed tests, but the USADA uses the term "indicative of" doping not positive for doping. It seems clear to me that the USADA will use indicative tests to corroborate other evidence, most likely witness testimony.

 

[Fidolix]

It is possible that UCI sent the request to be able to say to Lance, 'we tried and got told to go f.. ourselves so, buddy....you're on your own'.

The irony is that the whole world believes that their is a corrupt relationship between the UCI has and Lance, and this request will strengthen that belief. Maybe in this case, McQuaid is dumb as a fox...?...and tired of the whole thing?

I think he´s purely scared ****less.

To me it sounds like he tries to dig a hole and drop the whole case in it before he set it all on fire, hope the devil USADA then will forget all about it.
From the answer from William Bock it almost sounds like he´s saying: You really think we are that stupid Patty? Hand over the case to UCI would be like letting the fox guard the hens as he so well put it.

 

[MacRoadie]

Funny (but I forgot my password... )

Dave.

You can get a new one in less than an hour...

 

[thehog]

The reasoning of why the UCI should have control seems easy to defeat to me. There are two theories in Amrstrong's filing.

The first is that Landi's letter was sent to USA Cycling before it was sent to the USADA, so USA Cycling and by extension the UCI is the body that discovered information that led to non-analytical proceedings. This is easy defeated by the USADA pointing to information that it gathered before Landis. If JV can be believed, he talked to the USADA in 2004.

The second is that the UCI has authority for results management, including sanctions based on tests. This presumes that the USADA case is built on failed tests, but the USADA uses the term "indicative of" doping not positive for doping. It seems clear to me that the USADA will use indicative tests to corroborate other evidence, most likely witness testimony.

The irony being when the Landis "stuff" hit the fan back in May 2010 McQuaid stated that he'd request the federations to investigate.

Well. That's is what they're doing.

And now?

 

[will10]

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

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

Wow. Just wow.

 

[MarkvW]

This is funny: non-Texas law firm explaining how Armstrong's lawyers blew the 14-day filing deadline under local federal rules in Texas.


http://www.bouldercriminallawadviso...why-strict-compliance-with-local-is-critical/

Lance's mouthpiece is now an unhappy mouthpiece. He is reduced to hoping that the judge will have mercy on him.

 

[MacRoadie]

Story being picked up now:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/lance-armstrong-usada-doping-charges-uci-tries-to-block-080312

http://www.startribune.com/sports/164920196.html?refer=y

 

[Merckx index]

US District Judge Sam Sparks gave Armstrong's lawyers until the end of Friday to file their response to USADA's motion to dismiss the lawsuit after an argument over whether the cyclist's legal team had missed a deadline.

So if they don’t submit something within the next few hours, doesn’t that mean the lawsuit would be dismissed, and LA would face either arbitration or full sanctions? Not that I doubt that his lawyers will file something by the deadline.

I guess Sparks could rule otherwise, but if he's giving them a deadline it seems to imply that he will dismiss the lawsuit if they don't respond.

 

[Anonymous]

So if they don’t submit something within the next few hours, doesn’t that mean the lawsuit would be dismissed, and LA would face either arbitration or full sanctions? Not that I doubt that his lawyers will file something by the deadline.

I guess Sparks could rule otherwise, but if he's giving them a deadline it seems to imply that he will dismiss the lawsuit if they don't respond.

Wasn't the deadline yesterday... or did I miss something??

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I think Sparks will dismiss. Armstrong's team were never serious about filing the suit. They had to know they had no case. That initial 80 pages was nonsense. Sparks called it right: it was PR B.S. The 30 page revision was not much better, still lacking in substantive argument, and what was there was eviscerated by USADA's motion to dismiss.

Now, they frickin miss the deadline to respond to the motion to dismiss. What amateur hacks! So Sparks given them until the end of the day to respond. What are they going to do? They've got nothing. They never had anything. The whole thing is a farce.

Regardless of what they cobble together it will just be more nonsense. There is no case.

Sparks will dismiss.

 

[MarkvW]

So if they don’t submit something within the next few hours, doesn’t that mean the lawsuit would be dismissed, and LA would face either arbitration or full sanctions? Not that I doubt that his lawyers will file something by the deadline.

I guess Sparks could rule otherwise, but if he's giving them a deadline it seems to imply that he will dismiss the lawsuit if they don't respond.

More precisely, he will decide the jurisdictional motion without the input of Lance. Probably the same thing, though.

 

[thehog]

Story being picked up now:

http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/story/lance-armstrong-usada-doping-charges-uci-tries-to-block-080312

http://www.startribune.com/sports/164920196.html?refer=y

Lovin' the headline: Governing body backs Armstrong fight!

Robert Luskin, a lawyer for Armstrong, countered in a statement Friday that ''UCI has confirmed that it has exclusive jurisdiction over the allegations against Lance Armstrong and has instructed USADA to stop its proceedings.''

''All of the charges in USADA's complaint concern UCI international competitions or UCI-administered tests,'' Luskin said. ''It is time for USADA to take its own advice, follow the rules applicable to all elite international cyclists and allow UCI to proceed.''

 

[Ninety5rpm]

The judge gave them until midnight Central tonight.

Sounds like he's going to rule lack of jurisdiction. As he should.

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Plaintiff Lance Armstrong's Motion for Extension of Time [#39], and Defendants' response [#40] thereto. Having reviewed the documents, the relevant law, and the file as a whole, the Court now enters the following opinion and order GRANTING IN PART Armstrong's motion.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 19, 2012; consequently, Armstrong's response was due before midnight yesterday, August 2. See Local Rule CV-7(e)(2) ("A response to a dispositive motion shall be filed not later than 14 days after the filing of the motion."). Rather than filing his response, however, Armstrong filed a motion asking for an extension of his response deadline "at a minimum" to 5:00 p.m. Central time today, but ideally to 9:00 a.m. Central time on Monday, August 6. Defendants evidently do not oppose the shorter extension, but take issue with the longer, in part because it will circumscribe their time for filing a reply brief.

The Court GRANTS Armstrong's motion insofar as it asks for an extension to midnight Central time on this date; it is otherwise denied. As Defendants point out, it is incumbent upon Armstrong to establish the jurisdiction of this Court, and he has had since at least July 9, the date he filed this lawsuit, to marshal his evidence on that point. The Court is not inclined to penalize Defendants by substantially reducing their allotted time for filing a reply brief, simply because of Armstrong's delay. However, because Defendants' motion is potentially dispositive of this case, the Court wishes to have the benefit of meaningful briefing by Armstrong.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Lance Armstrong's Motion for Extension of Time [#3 9] is GRANTED IN PART, as described above in this order.

http://www.bouldercriminallawadvisor.com/files/2012/08/Lance-v.-USADA-Order2.pdf

 

[sniper]

"the evidence is even stronger that cycling under the management of the UCI has been enmeshed in its own EPO and blood doping era. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-08-03-15-30-19

My popcorn is popping all over the place!

 

[Digger]

My popcorn is popping all over the place!

To be fair even I thought that line was powerful.

 

[Stueyy]

And with the UCI/MCQuaid in the back pocket of British Cycling and Team Sky, I wonder what Pat is planning? Assume he's in defence mode getting as many allies as possible as the fallout is going to be serious.

 

[thehog]

And with the UCI/MCQuaid in the back pocket of British Cycling and Team Sky, I wonder what Pat is planning? Assume he's in defence mode getting as many allies as possible as the fallout is going to be serious.

Reminds me of Festina. When they popped Willy's boot the World Cup was on in the background. The story was small. But over time it just got bigger and bigger.

Luckily in '98 for the UCI there was nothing like social media. Today it will suffocate them.

News travels fast.

 

[Stueyy]

USADA not pulling punches: "By our count, of the 21 podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005, only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation. Yet, only a single one of these riders had a positive test with the UCI."

 

[Epicycle]

Verbruggen's fingerprints are likely all over this.

I agree. I wonder if Hein's bank account has received another fat donation in the last few days.