USADA - Armstrong

[krinaman]

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?

1st - The debate, as I understand it, is who has jurisdiction. A debate that could be easily resolved by simply sharing the evidence that they are claiming gives them jurisdiction with the UCI. I simply don't understand why they don't do that and end the debate.

2nd - The people have been charged so it's not like asking for evidence before being charged. Actually they have been charged, convicted, and sentenced. At this point the charged are appealing that verdict.

Based on the UCI two of the charged are expected to present their defense on August 15th but still haven't seen the evidence. If true, it's simply absurd.

I simply don't get USADA's thinking on this. The way they are proceeding makes them look shady and undermines their credibility.

 

[mewmewmew13]

1st - The debate, as I understand it, is who has jurisdiction. A debate that could be easily resolved by simply sharing the evidence that they are claiming gives them jurisdiction with the UCI. I simply don't understand why they don't do that and end the debate.

2nd - The people have been charged so it's not like asking for evidence before being charged. Actually they have been charged, convicted, and sentenced. At this point the charged are appealing that verdict.

Based on the UCI two of the charged are expected to present their defense on August 15th but still haven't seen the evidence. If true, it's simply absurd.

I simply don't get USADA's thinking on this. The way they are proceeding makes them look shady and undermines their credibility.

Really?

 

[MacRoadie]

Who is the UCL?

Susan

If were to guess, it would be the Union of Cycling Lunatics...

 

[MacRoadie]

As to the us cycling fed reaction to the uci 'order', I don't think you are correct.

I agree. I have to think that would be the first, easiest and most direct route to take for Armstrong.

 

[BroDeal]

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.

Keep wearing that dingy yellow bracelet from 2004 that looks like it might be carrying a communicable disease or two. Live strong, bro. Live strong.

 

[panache]

1st - The debate, as I understand it, is who has jurisdiction. A debate that could be easily resolved by simply sharing the evidence that they are claiming gives them jurisdiction with the UCI. I simply don't understand why they don't do that and end the debate.

2nd - The people have been charged so it's not like asking for evidence before being charged. Actually they have been charged, convicted, and sentenced. At this point the charged are appealing that verdict.

Based on the UCI two of the charged are expected to present their defense on August 15th but still haven't seen the evidence. If true, it's simply absurd.

I simply don't get USADA's thinking on this. The way they are proceeding makes them look shady and undermines their credibility.

• Lance applies for a license to USA Cycling
• USA Cycling Answers to UCI
• UCI must have an independent anti-doping agency conduct their testing per WADA. If they refuse, they are not allowed to compete in the Olympics and they lose all credibility with current and would-be sponsors in our post-Festina world
• USADA is the United States Agency under whose rules Lance agreed to abide in #1, and to whom the UCI agreed to abdicate responsibility in #3.
• Lance allegedly cheats.
• USADA uncovers Lance's alleged cheating.
• USADA opens a case based upon #4.
• Lance knows he will lose because #5 is more than alleged.
• Lance sues in federal court to stop #4 citing lack of USADA jurisdiction .
• Lance asks UCI to weigh in on his behalf. UCI conveniently ignores #3 and #4 in its demand that USADA back off.
• August 10, Lance either convinces the federal court that the rules to which he agreed to in #1 no longer apply, or he does not.
• If not, Lance goes to arbitration with three independent AAA arbitrators, one of whom is picked by Mr. Armstrong, where he sees the evidence, hears the testimony, and gets to respond.
• If either the USADA or Lance lose in arbitration, they have the right to appeal to CAS and convince a different, independent body that the arbitrators were unfair or misled.
• If the allegations are found to be without merit at CAS, Lance will fly free, vindicated for all the world to see.

Right now, it is obvious who is trying to manipulate a fair system to his own advantage and who is playing by pre-established rules. It is the only way he knows.

 

[MacRoadie]

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.

You must be new. According to the intern handbook, that's supposed to go at the beginning of your post.

 

[Race Radio]

So nice to see Pat and Hein stand by their old buddy Lance.....especially after he tried to sell them out

 

[BroDeal]

So nice to see Pat and Hein stand by their old buddy Lance.....especially after he tried to sell them out

When will Paddy and Heiny find out about this?

 

[mewmewmew13]

When will Paddy and Heiny find out about this?

If they read the Clinic they would already know...

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

You must be new. According to the intern handbook, that's supposed to go at the beginning of your post.

My favourite today. Thank you.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Exactly the same link I posted 20 posts before The Hog. Do you have to have a certain number of posts before people read them?

Nah I just hit reply on the one closest ...

 

[Hugh Januss]

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

No, you're good, he is the one that is missing out.

 

[Pastavore]

1st - The debate, as I understand it, is who has jurisdiction. A debate that could be easily resolved by simply sharing the evidence that they are claiming gives them jurisdiction with the UCI. I simply don't understand why they don't do that and end the debate.

2nd - The people have been charged so it's not like asking for evidence before being charged. Actually they have been charged, convicted, and sentenced. At this point the charged are appealing that verdict.

Based on the UCI two of the charged are expected to present their defense on August 15th but still haven't seen the evidence. If true, it's simply absurd.

I simply don't get USADA's thinking on this. The way they are proceeding makes them look shady and undermines their credibility.

I see you have 10 posts to my 4, but you know what? I like my credibility

1st, USADA is just using the same process they have for other athletes. The UCI is the body claiming jursidiction that they have never claimed before. I wonder why?

2nd, I thought we were talking about Armstrong? Again, USADA are following the same process as they are required, and have done for all other athletes. Why should Armstrong's case be handled differently?

I think that USADA are distinguishing themselves as a regulatory body who are not afraid to apply the rules without fear or favour.

 

[sittingbison]

So nice to see Pat and Hein stand by their old buddy Lance.....especially after he tried to sell them out

When will Paddy and Heiny find out about this?

If they read the Clinic they would already know...

Sorry you guys (and gals) have lost me on this. How/when has Lance thrown them under the bus?

 

[D-Queued]

Does anyone have Stapleton's SCA deposition?

Extract from Stapleton's SCA deposition:

"Q. Now, is it fair to say that Mr. Armstrong has had a little bit of rocky relations with Dick Pound at WADA?

A. Yes.

Q. But much more favorable relations with UCI?

A. Yes.

Q. In fact, it would be fair to say Mr. Armstrong actually has quite good relations with UCI?

A. We have had our moments. I would say, yes, his relationship with the UCI is clearly better than any relationship he has with Dick Pound.

Q. And Mr. Armstrong –

A. But you can’t infer from that that the UCI investigation is not independent. We don’t even know the investigator that’s doing the UCI investigation.

Q. Mr. Armstrong has, in fact, made a donation to the UCI at some point during his career, correct?

A. Yes, he has.

Q. And he’s the only professional cyclist, to your knowledge, that’s ever made a monetary donation to the UCI?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know the amount of that donation?

A. $25,000, I think.

Q. There have been reports that the amount of the donation is much higher; are those just inaccurate?

A. Absolutely. There was a report that a German member of the UCI board said it was 500,000, which is completely inaccurate, and in – and he gave the money in order to help buy a machine so they could do more blood testing. It’s sort of like giving money to endow a professorship and then it comes back to haunt you as if you’re trying to buy somebody off. That wasn’t the case.

Q. Do you know when the donation to the UCI was made?

A. No.

Q. Mr. Armstrong didn’t in his deposition know either. Has Mr. Armstrong or yourself on behalf of him ever released a copy of the check documenting the amount?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Let me approach you and show you what we will mark as –

Q. (BY MR. TILLOTSON) – Respondents’ Exhibit 93, and this is a news article, and you mentioned a German woman. Since you mentioned it, is the German woman you’re referring to Sylvia Schenk?

A. Yes, thank you.

Q. And Ms. Schenk was actually on the UCI management committee; is that right?

A. She was, yes.

Q. All right. And if you’ll note in the third paragraph this article reports Ms. Schenk saying, she noted further that since 1998 much has been done to combat doping in cycling, quote, but everything is suddenly different when it comes to Armstrong. There’s obviously a close relationship to Armstrong. For example, the UCI took a lot of money from Armstrong; as far as I know, $500,000. Now, of course, there’s speculation that there are financial relationships to Armstrong as well as the American market. Do you see that?

A. Yes, this is outrageous.

Mr. Herman: Your Honor, I object to the rank hearsay nature of this alleged fact by Mr. Tillotson. I mean, whatever Ms. Schenk said in the newspaper is rank hearsay, whether of course Mr. Stapleton heard it. That was the pending question, so we object to this backhanded way of trying to get something in evidence that shouldn’t be there. I object to it.

Mr. Tillotson: Well, the witness brought it up in connection with questioning from me. Also both Mr. Stapleton have either feigned ignorance regarding the details of the contribution or have not produced any documents to satisfy that particular matter so I’m confronting the witness with a statement that he, himself, brought up and said was outrageous, and I intend to ask him if there is any other financial relationships between Mr. Armstrong and UCI.

Arbitrator Faulkner: Anything?

Overruled. Go ahead and proceed to your next question.

Arbitrator Chernick: Did you state what the source of this Exhibit 93 is, the name of the newspaper?

Mr. Breen: Yes, what is that?

Mr. Tillotson: It may be on there. If not, I’ll go back and get it.

Arbitrator Lyon: Cycling News.

Mr. Tillotson: I believe it’s Cycling News is the cite.

Arbitrator Lyon: Is that right?

Mr. Tillotson: Yes.

Arbitrator Faulkner: Okay.

Q. (BY MR. TILLOTSON) Is there any other financial relationship between Mr. Armstrong and the UCI, other than the contribution?

A. Other than the contribution of $25,000, there was discussion at one point about another machine they wanted to purchase. That was a conversation Lance had. I don’t think it ever came to fruition. There are no other financial relationships between the UCI and Lance.

Q. Did Mr. Armstrong ever issue a press release saying that he was making a donation to the UCI?

A. I don’t think so.

Q. Did he ever publicly announce it?

A. He’s stated it in interviews. We certainly didn’t – it’s funny how this is getting turned on its head. We didn’t intend to hide it. It was made in good faith at a time when they were trying to buy a machine that tests more blood so they could do more drug testing at the UCI.

Q. Would you consider it unusual in any way, Mr. Stapleton, that one of the athletes who was regulated by UCI, for whom there have been allegations and suspicious for at least a six-or seven- year period, has donated money to the UCI? Do you consider that at all in the least bit unusual or suspicious?

A. No.

…

Q. Now, I want to talk for a moment about Dr. Ferrari. Have you ever met him, by the way?

A. Yes.

Q. And you first learned of Mr. Armstrong’s relationship with Dr. Ferrari when?

A. You know, probably ’95, ‘96

…

Q. Well, were you aware of any allegations involving Dr. Ferrari in the Italian trial and other riders who had ridden with Mr. Armstrong?

A. I think so. You’ve got to help me, but I think –

Q. Are you aware of Mr. – Kevin Livingston’s name has come up in connection with being helped by Dr. Ferrari, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you know also Dr. Ferrari worked with George Hincapie?

A. He did?

Q. And Floyd Landis?

A. Okay.

…"

There appears to be a whole bunch of goodies in there.

Dave.

 

[krinaman]

I see you have 10 posts to my 4, but you know what? I like my credibility

Credibilty? I am stating my opinion. I'm not sure how there is any sort of credibility issue.

 

[Pastavore]

Credibilty? I am stating my opinion. I'm not sure how there is any sort of credibility issue.

It's a joke. Hence the smiley face.

 

[Runitout]

Credibilty? I am stating my opinion. I'm not sure how there is any sort of credibility issue.

Your posts read like Armstrong press releases. Heavy on the hyperbole and short on the logic.

You make bald assertions regarding discovery without any apparent understanding of what the obligations of parties to make discovery are.

Rather than issue baseless hyperbole, can I suggest you read the USADA Protocol and then tell us where USADA is failing to comply with it?

 

[BullsFan22]

I think the second biggest POS is McQuaid. I wonder how much Wonderboy is paying him and the UCI these days?

 

[python]

i was perusing through herman's affidavit filed last friday and found it interesting that the world triathlon federation turned down armstron's request for affidavit.

also, perhaps even more significant, heman complained that some legal folks from usa cycling 'were unavailable' when he tried to reach out to them (one wink emoticon followed by 2 smiles)

 

[krinaman]

Your posts read like Armstrong press releases. Heavy on the hyperbole and short on the logic.

You make bald assertions regarding discovery without any apparent understanding of what the obligations of parties to make discovery are.

Rather than issue baseless hyperbole, can I suggest you read the USADA Protocol and then tell us where USADA is failing to comply with it?

Hyperbole?

What have a exaggerated?

What "bald assertion" have I made?

Pretty much, the only thing I said is that the way the USADA is going about this doesn't make sense to me. Simply releasing the evidence makes much more sense. I'm not sure how that is "short on logic".

I couldn't tell you what the USADA requirements are for discovery and I never claimed they didn't meet them. But I do happen to know a little about discovery in the legal system as I develop software specifically for it (by no means am I claiming to be a legal expert. But based on my experience with explaining what I do for a living I can say the average person knows nothing about discovery).

Giving people less than 10 days to prepare a defense is IN MY OPINION absurd. If doing that is within the USADA protocol then their protocol sucks and the term "kangaroo court" is fitting.

It just seems to me that proving LA and company's guilt in an unquestionably fair fashion would be better than doing it in a sketchy one. That way there is no more argument.

Again, if they have the evidence (and I assume they do) simply provide it and the jurisdiction debate goes away along with the due process argument. I can't see any reason to not provide it, which is why it makes no sense to me. Help me out here, give me a good reason to not provide the evidence to the UCI or the charged parties. The only thing I see not releasing it doing is providing ammo for Lance to use in court.

IDK, I just think everybody deserves their (fair) day in court. Even those that I think are guilty (yes, I believe beyond a doubt that Lance doped. Does that sound like a press release too?). Watching the USADA screw up the case and having it dropped does nothing to clean up the sport. But apparently, not wanting the case screwed up makes me some sort of LA supporter and instantly hated on this board, whatever.....

 

[AussieGoddess]

The evidence will be given to LA in due course, as applicable and required by the arbitration process.

that does not mean that he should get early access to it in order to harrass and discredit witnesses who are yet to testify (which he has a history of) or for the UCI to be able to throw a spanner into the works of.

If you read the letter from the USADA to the UCI in full (here), you may get a feel for why USADA do not want the UCI involved, and if you read back on some of the history of how Lance has treated past witnesses or adversaries, you will understand why the USADA are cautious with supplying him with the names of those who are testifying or what information they are providing.

He will get his day in court. He is currently just arguing about which court that should be in, when exactly he should get access to the information, and whether or not his buddies at the UCI can intervene and stop the process altogther.

His rights have not been infringed at any point.

 

[sittingbison]

I couldn't tell you what the USADA requirements are for discovery...I do happen to know a little about discovery in the legal system...give me a good reason to not provide the evidence to the UCI or the charged parties. The only thing I see not releasing it doing is providing ammo for Lance to use in court...I just think everybody deserves their (fair) day in court....Watching the USADA screw up the case and having it dropped...

krinaman, when you first posed your questions, you were advised to perhaps do a bit of research, then read some on the 6000 posts on this thread, and all your questions would be answered.

Which you have not done. Sigh.

To help you along a bit, and prevent you bringing this up 6000 posts too late, here are a few pointers:
1) Lances manager Stapleton co-wrote the USADA guidelines, which Lance has signed and agreed to follow every year he was issued a riding license
2)It was made explicitly clear in the original letter from USADA that they would protect witnesses because of the very real prospect of witness tampering and intimidation given Lances previous behaviour.
3) Part of the allegation is that UCI is complicit in a conspiracy with Lance, USADA will certainly NOT be handing over the evidence [see (2)]
4) The evidence has been given to the relevant authorities (Independent Tribunal) alluded to in the USADA guidelines which has already determined Lance has a case to answer
5) This is an arbitration process, not a court of law, it is not 'the legal system' to which you have some small exposure. Whatever your vague notions are of jurisprudence, they do not apply - there is no 'discovery', there is no day in court, no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt etc etc etc
6) USADA is not screwing up anything, they are following their guidelines exactly to the letter

Now, can you please read the 6000 posts starting on page 1 post 1 before making more ill informed posts.

cheers
bison

 

[Rainfox]

Hello there.

Or as Selina Kyle once said by removing the o and the t.. hell here? *smile*

I'm a longtime Armstong fan and (I'll be) a lifelong Livestrong supporter.

Yet I will use a quote from the wonderful Sam Harris to get to the short and sweet of it all, regarding whether Lance Armstrong doped during his TdF victories.

"Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. What if someone says, 'Well, that’s not how I choose to think about water.'? All we can do is appeal to scientific values. And if he doesn’t share those values, the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?"

Armstrong inspired me personally, from healthy living to a recent diet regime just before turning 40 this Summer, and he continues to do so. Having lost family members to cancer, I am involved with Livestrong and will do that even after this case is settled.

Did he dope? How is this even still an issue? Logic says he did - to an overwhelming degree! Just judging from the top 30 active pro cyclists 1999-2005.

Therefore, I too find this very puzzling (that USADA doesn't just slam the evidence on the table).. it just furthers the balkanization if you will and it opens doors for Armstrong to go through doors via legal technicalities.

As for the conspiracy theories of UCI etc ? That's really the only interesting thing here. To me, anyway.

The tragedy of cheating and doping in sports is just that - and I don't condone it nor support it. Lance did and continues to inspire me though. As an athlete. It's up to him to look his children in the eye at night, tuck them in and say, 'No, daddy didn't cheat.'. That is too brutal for me and too personal.

PS: BTW! Read Sam Harris brilliant short-book "Lying". Available for iPad and iPhone also. On just that.. lying.