USADA - Armstrong

[Kennf1]

I'm wondering if or when David Howman/WADA will opine on this turf war. For that matter, I'm expecting Steve johnson to send a letter to USADA asking that it comply with UCI's requests.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Wow, thanks for checking in with an expert opinion there, Apollonia. BTW, loved your work in Purple Rain.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Utterly Crap Lawyers?

Union Cycliste Lance, of course.

I think we have our winner.

 

[thehog]

I'm wondering if or when David Howman/WADA will opine on this turf war. For that matter, I'm expecting Steve johnson to send a letter to USADA asking that it comply with UCI's requests.

I think USADA would declare a conflict of interest and proceed. They'd refer US cycling to go to CAS if they disagree.

 

[Kennf1]

I think USADA would declare a conflict of interest and proceed. They'd refer US cycling to go to CAS if they disagree.

I'm not saying USADA would oblige, I just suspect that the phone calls of Armstrong to Weisel to Johnson have already taken place.

Came across an interesting article from 2008 (during the Landis appeal) that gives some background to the friction between WADA and UCI:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/wada-and-uci-in-legal-fight-15314/


"It is especially disappointing that the UCI takes these steps and commits its finances to legal action against WADA, rather than assisting in the funding of the Landis appeal. UCI specifically declined to contribute to the Landis case on the grounds that it had "no budget" to do so," read WADA's release. "Yet the appeal was specifically conducted under UCI rules, involved a breach of the sport's anti-doping policy, and is a major case for the sport. (NB: USADA conducted the hearings under delegated authority from USA Cycling, the UCI's national member in the U.S.)"

 

[thehog]

I'm not saying USADA would oblige, I just suspect that the phone calls of Armstrong to Weisel to Johnson have already taken place.

Came across an interesting article from 2008 (during the Landis appeal) that gives some background to the friction between WADA and UCI:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/wada-and-uci-in-legal-fight-15314/


"It is especially disappointing that the UCI takes these steps and commits its finances to legal action against WADA, rather than assisting in the funding of the Landis appeal. UCI specifically declined to contribute to the Landis case on the grounds that it had "no budget" to do so," read WADA's release. "Yet the appeal was specifically conducted under UCI rules, involved a breach of the sport's anti-doping policy, and is a major case for the sport. (NB: USADA conducted the hearings under delegated authority from USA Cycling, the UCI's national member in the U.S.)"

Funny. McQuaid still states the UCI spent 1m on the Landis appeals.

 

[python]

.

Came across an interesting article from 2008 (during the Landis appeal) that gives some background to the friction between WADA and UCI:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/wada-and-uci-in-legal-fight-15314/

this dated info is utterly irrelevant to the current events though it does convey the spirit of WADA's position on the usada cace against the uci somewhat properly...

WADA was lead then by richardo pound, a bluster boy with the right message and good heart...today's, wada is far less mouthy and much more Suttle whilst still fully supporting usada as many of their hits have indicated..

As to the us cycling fed reaction to the uci 'order', I don't think you are correct.
Time will tell but one needs to count USADA's bold actions so far as that front has been taken care of, as I already said, the us cyling fed is 100% with usada regardless of the old corrupt connections, or in fact due to the old corrupt connections for which there is little appetite during the Olympics.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Do you know how petty and childish you sound? (and not just you, the bulk of bitter people posting in this thread also sound the same).

The charges against Lance are ludicrous - all this business with granting immunity for more culpable cyclists to testify against him is grounds enough to label this investigation a complete farce. No wonder the UCL has had to step in. The USDA don't have the authority to issue sanctions against Armstrong let alone offer immunity and reduced sanctions to self confessed cheats!
The UCL will rightly want to ensure the correct action is taken against admitted dopers whilst ensuring the process itself isn't abused or shrouded in a murky cloak as it is now.

If the USADA has genuine, legally and morally obtained sound evidence against Lance Armstrong then they should hand it over to the UCL as requested and stop acting as some renegade judicial outfit. The UCL are the Governing body and the higher authority.

Most of you are so anti Armstrong that you can't see the woods for the trees. You can't actually see how dangerous it is for cycling and sports as a whole if outfits such as the USADA are allowed to go on campaigns, manipulate rules and set agendas in order to achieve their goals.

Hopefully this case will destroy the USADA in its current form and force the outfit to undergo serious reform. Shame on you all here for acting like cheerleaders and dancing with glee every time the USADA crosses a moral or legal boundary.

You must be joking....or seriously under the influence of Lance leverage.

 

[zigmeister]

You must be joking....or seriously under the influence of Lance leverage.

No, but it does show that USADA is a complete joke and hasnt the slightest clue how to run a basic investigatin.

And since they are under no legal requirements to offer due process as a court of law, it maks for an obvious conclusion and bias that will ensue. sadly, their credibility is zero right now, right where most think Lance's is also.

They wanted people to respond to their allegations, with no evidence presented as to what facts they have and proof, just a simple you must respond to us letter, or else we will ban you.

USADA is going to have zero credibility when this is over the way they have gone about this.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

No, but it does show that USADA is a complete joke and hasnt the slightest clue how to run a basic investigatin.

And since they are under no legal requirements to offer due process as a court of law, it maks for an obvious conclusion and bias that will ensue. sadly, their credibility is zero right now, right where most think Lance's is also.

They wanted people to respond to their allegations, with no evidence presented as to what facts they have and proof, just a simple you must respond to us letter, or else we will ban you.

USADA is going to have zero credibility when this is over the way they have gone about this.

Disagree respectfully. I actually think they did all the groundwork on this. Time will tell.

 

[MarkvW]

No, but it does show that USADA is a complete joke and hasnt the slightest clue how to run a basic investigatin.

And since they are under no legal requirements to offer due process as a court of law, it maks for an obvious conclusion and bias that will ensue. sadly, their credibility is zero right now, right where most think Lance's is also.

They wanted people to respond to their allegations, with no evidence presented as to what facts they have and proof, just a simple you must respond to us letter, or else we will ban you.

USADA is going to have zero credibility when this is over the way they have gone about this.

USADA is going to come out of this looking a lot better than the UCI.

Anybody who elects to contest the charge will get access to the facts held by USADA.

This is a test of wills between a dirty athlete and the agency tasked to sanction dirty athletes.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Any word on what if anything Armstrong filed on Friday before the revised deadline at midnight?

 

[mewmewmew13]

Undead Cat Lovers?

That would be me and a few others round these parts

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Found it.

Let’s play jurisdiction hot potato!

Excerpt:

All of this mumbo-jumbo boils down to a couple of key points. One, through the magic of the legal loopholes, the UCI has exclusive jurisdiction over everything. Two, Mr. Armstrong never consented to arbitration with the USADA because the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act [Sports Act] does not apply to professional cyclists (automatically declares that sports eligibility disputes be resolved by arbitration), and even though he consented to be governed by the USADA through his UCI license application, USADA shouldn’t have jurisdiction over him because they’re not following the rules.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Here is a link to Armstrong's response to the USADA's motion to dismiss:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101992965...memorandum-in-opposition-to-motion-to-dismiss

 

[krinaman]

I don't understand why the USADA is going about this the way they are.

I can only see a few possible goals for the USADA here, get LA and company, get the UCI, or both.

Assuming they have the proof they say they do why not follow proper procedure?

Turn the evidence over to UCI. If the evidence is as compelling as the USADA says it is and the UCI doesn't act on it they have move evidence of UCI ineffectiveness/corruption. Take that evidence to CAS and they get everyone. If the UCI does act they get LA and company.

I know at least one poster commented that giving the evidence to the UCI would be akin to giving to LA. Which may be true but they should be giving the evidence to LA and company anyway.

Which brings up the next point. Why are they refusing to give the evidence to the charged parties? In the US this is referred to as the discovery phase and it requires that both sides provide each other with any evidence they have prior to the trial (no it doesn't work like TV where last second surprise evidence wins the day). By not providing this information they open themselves up for the violation of due process claims which we have already seen.

I don't know, they are doing several things to open themselves up to criticism and undermining their decision. Assuming they have the evidence they claim they do it just doesn't make a lot of sense.

Just to be 100% clear I am in no way, shape, or form trying to defend LA or the UCI here. I am just questioning the USADA's tactics.

 

[ManInFull]

Any word on what if anything Armstrong filed on Friday before the revised deadline at midnight?

So, are we going to hear anything on Friday, August 10th? I'm beginning to get the feeling that Armstrong is going to lawyer his way out of having to face USADA.

 

[thehog]

I don't understand why the USADA is going about this the way they are.

I can only see a few possible goals for the USADA here, get LA and company, get the UCI, or both.

Assuming they have the proof they say they do why not follow proper procedure?

Turn the evidence over to UCI. If the evidence is as compelling as the USADA says it is and the UCI doesn't act on it they have move evidence of UCI ineffectiveness/corruption. Take that evidence to CAS and they get everyone. If the UCI does act they get LA and company.

I know at least one poster commented that giving the evidence to the UCI would be akin to giving to LA. Which may be true but they should be giving the evidence to LA and company anyway.

Which brings up the next point. Why are they refusing to give the evidence to the charged parties? In the US this is referred to as the discovery phase and it requires that both sides provide each other with any evidence they have prior to the trial (no it doesn't work like TV where last second surprise evidence wins the day). By not providing this information they open themselves up for the violation of due process claims which we have already seen.

I don't know, they are doing several things to open themselves up to criticism and undermining their decision. Assuming they have the evidence they claim they do it just doesn't make a lot of sense.

Just to be 100% clear I am in no way, shape, or form trying to defend LA or the UCI here. I am just questioning the USADA's tactics.

Jnr. Scroll back about 879 posts and start there. If you still have questions then we'll respond. For now start reading. Questions later.

 

[mewmewmew13]

I don't understand why the USADA is going about this the way they are.
<snip>
.

Unless you are an attorney actually involved in this case and have privy to all the info and actions of USADA I don't understand how you can make a blanket statement that they are faltering or making mis-steps???

If there are specific mistakes that you can see them making then it would be great if you could share this info with all of us....

I feel like I'm missing out

 

[Pastavore]

I don't understand why the USADA is going about this the way they are.

I can only see a few possible goals for the USADA here, get LA and company, get the UCI, or both.

Assuming they have the proof they say they do why not follow proper procedure?

Turn the evidence over to UCI. If the evidence is as compelling as the USADA says it is and the UCI doesn't act on it they have move evidence of UCI ineffectiveness/corruption. Take that evidence to CAS and they get everyone. If the UCI does act they get LA and company.

I know at least one poster commented that giving the evidence to the UCI would be akin to giving to LA. Which may be true but they should be giving the evidence to LA and company anyway.

Which brings up the next point. Why are they refusing to give the evidence to the charged parties? In the US this is referred to as the discovery phase and it requires that both sides provide each other with any evidence they have prior to the trial (no it doesn't work like TV where last second surprise evidence wins the day). By not providing this information they open themselves up for the violation of due process claims which we have already seen.

I don't know, they are doing several things to open themselves up to criticism and undermining their decision. Assuming they have the evidence they claim they do it just doesn't make a lot of sense.

Just to be 100% clear I am in no way, shape, or form trying to defend LA or the UCI here. I am just questioning the USADA's tactics.

I'm only new here, so forgive me if I get this wrong.

But firstly, USADA is following proper procedure. The UCI has in the past always referred doping cases to the national bodies for investigation and prosecution, it has not performed this function itself. And USADA has the right to investigate and prosecute upon any evidence it discovers.

Secondly, I have no doubt that when the arbitration commences, USADA will follow proper processes and evidence will be made available to the armstrong team. At the moment the argy bargy is about armstrong trying to prevent armstrong from being charged. I guess it is a bit like expecting police to hand over evidence of an investigation before you are charged?

 

[mewmewmew13]

I'm only new here, so forgive me if I get this wrong.

But firstly, USADA is following proper procedure. The UCI has in the past always referred doping cases to the national bodies for investigation and prosecution, it has not performed this function itself. And USADA has the right to investigate and prosecute upon any evidence it discovers.

Secondly, I have no doubt that when the arbitration commences, USADA will follow proper processes and evidence will be made available to the armstrong team. At the moment the argy bargy is about armstrong trying to prevent armstrong from being charged. I guess it is a bit like expecting police to hand over evidence of an investigation before you are charged?

You are not wrong

 

[elapid]

I have a question: how is the USADA-Armstrong case different to the CONI-Valverde case? CONI used information that had not been provided by the UCI to sanction Valverde and the case was not referred to CONI by the UCI, but eventually the UCI ratified the sanction. I know CONI were only able to ban Valverde from racing in Italy, and the aims against Armstrong are more far reaching, but still there are a number of similarities. The USADA are using information not provided by the UCI and bringing a case against Armstrong that was not referred to USADA by the UCI. What is the difference? Why was it OK for Valverde and not Armstrong?

 

[Anonymous]

I have a question: how is the USADA-Armstrong case different to the CONI-Valverde case? CONI used information that had not been provided by the UCI to sanction Valverde and the case was not referred to CONI by the UCI, but eventually the UCI ratified the sanction. I know CONI were only able to ban Valverde from racing in Italy, and the aims against Armstrong are more far reaching, but still there are a number of similarities. The USADA are using information not provided by the UCI and bringing a case against Armstrong that was not referred to USADA by the UCI. What is the difference? Why was it OK for Valverde and not Armstrong?

Money and influence.

Rules don't apply to LA. Simple as that.

 

[thehog]

I have a question: how is the USADA-Armstrong case different to the CONI-Valverde case? CONI used information that had not been provided by the UCI to sanction Valverde and the case was not referred to CONI by the UCI, but eventually the UCI ratified the sanction. I know CONI were only able to ban Valverde from racing in Italy, and the aims against Armstrong are more far reaching, but still there are a number of similarities. The USADA are using information not provided by the UCI and bringing a case against Armstrong that was not referred to USADA by the UCI. What is the difference? Why was it OK for Valverde and not Armstrong?

However, contrary to some media reports, the November 16th hearing will not have a direct influence on a possible global ban. That will be determined by a later hearing with CAS, which will be considering a joint UCI/WADA appeal against the Spanish federation (RFEC).

The UCI, cycling's governing body, and the World Anti-Doping Agency are both frustrated with the Spanish federation as it refused to consider sanctioning Valverde in relation to the Puerto links. They hope that the CAS appeal will pave the way for an eventual global suspension.

--

"The message for cyclists is that at any time if you get involved in a doping program, at any time it could come back and haunt you," McQuaid said.


"He was certainly involved in Puerto and that has come back to haunt him. That is a message for any cyclist today - if he decides to get involved in a doping programme, that it may eventually come back to haunt him. There is no statute of limitations in relation to that, so it is a good lesson from that point of view".

 

[D-Queued]

Does anyone have Stapleton's SCA deposition?

Yes, I do.

Sorry, but the Olympics have distracted me and I have missed a reply deadline...

I will take a look...

Dave.