USADA - Armstrong

[MarkvW]

Velonews is reporting that USAC Cycling is not going to comment on the UCI--USADA situation.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Excuse me if this has been posted already but I thought it was interesting that the UCI didn't intervene formally when they apparently could have...

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Features/...I_s_Bark_is_Stronger_than_its_Bite__2970.html

Just because they could intervene under FRCP Rule 24(B)(1)(a) doesn't mean in any way add legitimacy to their claim that they, and not USADA, has jurisdiction to decide how the arbitration should take place. The claim that this case is within their purview is baseless, so they didn't intervene because why pay an attorney to do something you know is a sure loser? They just added more smoke so that Armstrong will hopefully keep his mouth shut about those things which could take the UCI down. They have a vested interest in keeping the information about the UCI's cover-up of Armstrong's positive secret, but they have no valid legal argument that they have any authority to stop the USADA from arbitrating this dispute.

I also note the bull**** apologist bent of the Slowtwitch article when it refers to the "mess" of USADA's process. Um, it isn't a mess at all. Looks to me like they are very competent in their proceedings, and the continued idea presented there that this process is somehow unfair is ridiculous. They like to talk about what "could" happen in relation to Armstrong's rights under AAA's supplemental rules, but continue to deny the reality that the standards (not the exceptions an arbitrator MAY employ in unique situations) provide for everything Armstrong claims he will be denied. Then again, the owner of Slowtwicth has a vested interest in promoting this false narrative because of his historical support of Armstrong and the fact that the reality is that he has been supporting a doping fraud for many years.

The only real mess I see is Armstrong's legal team fumbling around with the appropriate content of a motion, and their blowing of a filing date...yea, it is "mess" there for sure...

 

[spalco]

USADA would have an uncontested positive and sanction against someone who pulled out every dirty trick trying to beat them. What would motivate them NOT to make public their evidence? It's not like they've pulled any punches so far.

Well, I'm not sure how exactly it works, but from what I understand the bulk of the evidence comes from witness testimony. So if they never actually testify in a hearing, because there is no arbitration or court hearing, Armstrong could still pretend to ignore that part and try to convince his minions it's all nonsense.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Velonews is reporting that USAC Cycling is not going to comment on the UCI--USADA situation.

 

[python]

My thoughts on reading McQuaids intervention was to wonder was it a knee jerk reaction set up in haste after he got a call from Wonderboy?

it was INDEED a hasty reaction from the uci as i mentioned above.

whether it originated with a signal from armstrong's lawyers or a plain survival instinct kicked in after the animal fear of being further exposed for receiving more bribes finally set in, that in my view is secondary to the uci's hand being forced to make a poor tactical move.

either heiny got involved too late or verbiest's legal nose is NOT smelling right any longer, regardless, it will be very easy for usada and wada to show to any objective jury the zig-zags and turn-abouts in the uci path - something a solid anti-doping stand is not compatible with.

also, i was expecting a speedy uci rejection of yesterday's slap-down by wada...none have come out and that is another indication of their internal confusion

 

[Maxiton]

so the lines are drawn. as i predicted, wada threw its support behind usada.

however from here wada actions look very different from a maxed out, head-and-shoulders commitment of a virtual co-conspirator like the uci’s...iow, uci seems like it shut it’s wad whilst wada has plenty of wad (pun intended).

it is interesting and perhaps revealing to look at the differences in style, timing and methods of uci and wada involvement

Style
UCI - inconsistent. from muttering public support to complete about face in their official documents.
wada- always the same reserved message to all parties without excessive verbiage.

Timing
UCI- rushed with several almost hysterical letters obviously timed to produce affect before the hearing in texas federal court.
Wada - one letter to the uci and a brief press release issued only 3 days before the hearing.

Method
UCI - direct, full commitment involvement in federal proceedings on the side of one of the litigants.
WADA - not involved in direct way in the federal proceedings, not submitted an affidavit on its position though it’s rather unambiguous.

This brief analysis suggests that if the struggle gets elevated i simply don’t see much that the uci can do in support of it’s current position except a direct official appeal to cas to arbitrate it’s jurisdiction ?

Nice analysis. Don't forget the (strong) possibility they will do something completely irrational. Why change now? Maybe UCI will file suit. Whatever chaff they can throw up they probably will.

To me the most interesting thing is the 180 they did - from above-the-fray statements vaguely supportive of USADA and "the process", to inserting themselves last minute on behalf of the accused, with seemingly no regard for how it would make them look or the complicity it strongly implies. A really strange, transparent, self-defeating desperation. Question is, whose desperation?

These guys are all about money and power. There is a lot of money and power in drugs. What would really be interesting is if this USADA thing leads to investigation of McQuaid, et al at UCI, and it turns out they were involved in the PED supply chain.

 

[MacRoadie]

Maybe UCI will file suit.

It's probably in the printer now, right under the Landis defamation suit...

 

[Maxiton]

Yes, but probably no prosecution. They got the Federal case swept away, a perjury case is probably not feasible. Should it be? Yes.

I still think the fed case being dropped was a tactical retreat, and that we'll see a new fed case at some point. In fact, I'd wager LA's legal team expects it.

The problem with Wonderboy not contesting USADA is at minimum their resolution should lead to civil litigation given the number of deals done on fraudulent terms. My estimation is he and Weisel still taint the business side of cycling after the USADA events.

But they're going to face civil litigation up the yin-yang no matter what - unless they can make this all go away, which they can't.

I still think the UCI and Weisel over at USAC have positioned the federation to ignore USADA's findings using some elaborate excuse.

I think the IOC hasn't played their hand yet either. So far, it hasn't infected the IOC brand. Should it threaten the perception of "the Olympics," then I think there's another Friday afternoon press release and it all evaporates.

Call me cynical, but it occurred to me when I read the WADA statement in support of USADA, that this was IOC playing their hand . . . from a safe distance.

It's probably in the printer now, right under the Landis defamation suit...

Right.

 

[MarkvW]

it was INDEED a hasty reaction from the uci as i mentioned above.

whether it originated with a signal from armstrong's lawyers or a plain survival instinct kicked in after the animal fear of being further exposed for receiving more bribes finally set in, that in my view is secondary to the uci's hand being forced to make a poor tactical move.

either heiny got involved too late or verbiest's legal nose is NOT smelling right any longer, regardless, it will be very easy for usada and wada to show to any objective jury the zig-zags and turn-abouts in the uci path - something a solid anti-doping stand is not compatible with.

also, i was expecting a speedy uci rejection of yesterday's slap-down by wada...none have come out and that is another indication of their internal confusion

I wouldn't characterize McQuaid's actions as hasty. I would characterize them more as tepid, wishy-washy, or temporizing.

First McQuaid wants to do the happy Pontius Pilate, washing his hands of the whole mess. He tells the world that this is entirely USADA's matter and that he is aloof.

Then McQuaid enters the fray. But he doesn't jump in the water. Nooooo, he sticks his little toe in. All he does is write two letters. What could he have done? Heck, he could have intervened in the Texas case and made the argument that he made in his letters: "I am the all powerful grand poobah of cycling and I have Commanded my minions (the USAC) to stop this awful witch hunt of my beloved Lance. Their refusal to leave Lance alone is a breach of our contract (and all that is good and holy). I demand that USAC call off their dogs (USADA)."

I agree with Chewbacca that such an approach probably wouldn't get the UCI anywhere, and would certainly lead to their ultimate embarrassment, but I'd bet that it is what Lance asked Pat to do. Lance doesn't care about anybody else. He'd gladly invite Pat and the UCI to their destruction if it would enhance his personal odds.

Pat looks kind of like a fool in this, to me. Either he should stay out of it or he should jump in with both feet and go to war. We've seen this kind of goofy posturing before with the supposed Floyd lawsuit.

Also, it doesn't look to me like Lance has Pat by the Juan Pelotas. If he did, the UCI would be fighting in Texas for Lance's right to dope. The relationship between the two has to be a little more complicated than that.

 

[Maxiton]

I wouldn't characterize McQuaid's actions as hasty. I would characterize them more as tepid, wishy-washy, or temporizing.

First McQuaid wants to do the happy Pontius Pilate, washing his hands of the whole mess. He tells the world that this is entirely USADA's matter and that he is aloof.

Then McQuaid enters the fray. But he doesn't jump in the water. Nooooo, he sticks his little toe in. All he does is write two letters. What could he have done? Heck, he could have intervened in the Texas case and made the argument that he made in his letters: "I am the all powerful grand poobah of cycling and I have Commanded my minions (the USAC) to stop this awful witch hunt of my beloved Lance. Their refusal to leave Lance alone is a breach of our contract (and all that is good and holy). I demand that USAC call off their dogs (USADA)."

I agree with Chewbacca that such an approach probably wouldn't get the UCI anywhere, and would certainly lead to their ultimate embarrassment, but I'd bet that it is what Lance asked Pat to do. Lance doesn't care about anybody else. He'd gladly invite Pat and the UCI to their destruction if it would enhance his personal odds.

Pat looks kind of like a fool in this, to me. Either he should stay out of it or he should jump in with both feet and go to war. We've seen this kind of goofy posturing before with the supposed Floyd lawsuit.

Also, it doesn't look to me like Lance has Pat by the Juan Pelotas. If he did, the UCI would be fighting in Texas for Lance's right to dope. The relationship between the two has to be a little more complicated than that.

McQuaid's last minute about-face could also be read as extreme reluctance - as something he didn't want to do because he knew it would look bad, but did anyway because he was given no choice. Those two letters he sent were pretty much throwing his lot, and that of his organization, in on the LA side.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Velonews is reporting that USAC Cycling is not going to comment on the UCI--USADA situation.

Yet.

At some point I can hear Lance screaming at his cronies there to step up the support. He has to be frantically bailing water....

 

[mewmewmew13]

it was INDEED a hasty reaction from the uci as i mentioned above.

whether it originated with a signal from armstrong's lawyers or a plain survival instinct kicked in after the animal fear of being further exposed for receiving more bribes finally set in, that in my view is secondary to the uci's hand being forced to make a poor tactical move.

either heiny got involved too late or verbiest's legal nose is NOT smelling right any longer, regardless, it will be very easy for usada and wada to show to any objective jury the zig-zags and turn-abouts in the uci path - something a solid anti-doping stand is not compatible with.

also, i was expecting a speedy uci rejection of yesterday's slap-down by wada...none have come out and that is another indication of their internal confusion[/QUOTE]

Interesting and very likely accurate analysis.

 

[MacRoadie]

Velonews is reporting that USAC Cycling is not going to comment on the UCI--USADA situation.

And yet Shawn Farrell, USAC Technical Director, signed an affidavit filed by Armstrong just this morning, providing support for the Armstrong/UCI claim of UCI jurisdiction.

No comment, but we'll sign your affidavit Lance...

 

[MacRoadie]

Yet.

At some point I can hear Lance screaming at his cronies there to step up the support. He has to be frantically bailing water....

It's all total BS. Shawn Farrell signed an affidavit that was filed this morning.

 

[Benotti69]

Is it possible than Armstrong lawyers are playing their own separate game with Armstrong and taking him down avenues that will lead him to years of litigation that they must be rubbing their hands together in glee?

Maybe wishful thinking on my part.

How much do we expect of Judge Sparks to be researching the background to this sorry doping saga?

Will he be reading the SCA case for example or just dealing with what was placed in front of him by Armstrong and USADA?

 

[Epicycle]

McQuaid's last minute about-face could also be read as extreme reluctance - as something he didn't want to do because he knew it would look bad, but did anyway because he was given no choice. Those two letters he sent were pretty much throwing his lot, and that of his organization, in on the LA side.

I really suspect Verbruggen was behind it. The ultimate would be for Pat to turn on Hein. Not something I expect but that would lob a nuclear weapon into the fray.

 

[thehog]

Is it possible than Armstrong lawyers are playing their own separate game with Armstrong and taking him down avenues that will lead him to years of litigation that they must be rubbing their hands together in glee?

Maybe wishful thinking on my part.

How much do we expect of Judge Sparks to be researching the background to this sorry doping saga?

Will he be reading the SCA case for example or just dealing with what was placed in front of him by Armstrong and USADA?

The Judge can only judge on what’s placed in front of him. He is not authorized to use secondary sources for his decision other than precedent.

He could read the Clinic and save himself a good two days of reading though.

 

[Benotti69]

I really suspect Verbruggen was behind it. The ultimate would be for Pat to turn on Hein. Not something I expect but that would lob a nuclear weapon into the fray.

I guess these 2 dopes are part of a bigger IOC council that runs most sports in the games, well the professional ones anyway to serve and meet their own ends.

I get the impression McQuaid is the weakest link and hence his non invitation higher into Olympic cirlces.

If USADA can execute this investigation to its max we might see bigger fish than the 2 that ran UCI between them fall.

I hope someone big squeals for all their worth.

 

[Anonymous]

And yet Shawn Farrell, USAC Technical Director, signed an affidavit filed by Armstrong just this morning, providing support for the Armstrong/UCI claim of UCI jurisdiction.

No comment, but we'll sign your affidavit Lance...

Weisel pulling the strings?

Making Farrell walk the plank or do you think he's corrupt as well?

 

[FitSsikS]

If anyone is having a tough time remembering all of the details regarding FL/LA/USADA/McQuaid etc, the biking blogger (Anna Zimmerman-150 watts of you know what) has put together some Lance Armstrong Cliff Notes.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Weisel pulling the strings?

Making Farrell walk the plank or do you think he's corrupt as well?

Poor Shawn - he must have forgot he once posted this:

Policy II. Medical Control USA Cycling has a zero-tolerance policy for doping in our sport. Fair play is paramount in maintaining the integrity of bicycle racing and the athletes who participate in it at any level and discipline. USA Cycling is committed to working with the United States Olympic Committee the UCI the U.S. AntiDoping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency to ensure a level playing field for all of our athletes.

<snipped>

Full document here from the USAC website:
http://www.usacycling.org/forms/policy2.pdf

 

[the big ring]

And yet Shawn Farrell, USAC Technical Director, signed an affidavit filed by Armstrong just this morning, providing support for the Armstrong/UCI claim of UCI jurisdiction.

No comment, but we'll sign your affidavit Lance...

Filed it where? Their window for response ended days ago.

 

[Oldman]

And yet Shawn Farrell, USAC Technical Director, signed an affidavit filed by Armstrong just this morning, providing support for the Armstrong/UCI claim of UCI jurisdiction.

No comment, but we'll sign your affidavit Lance...

They may as well spit on the the Great White shark headed their way, for what it's worth. Be surprised if anyone paid attention.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

After reading the affidavit, here is my take:

This is how I read it.

1. They are stipulating that USADA was not referenced prior to 2004, which may bolster a claim that any doping violations that occurred prior to that would be the province of the UCI. In the years that the USADA was included (2004-2010), the case would be within the purview of the USADA. Here is the rub- does the testimony and evidence against Armstrong all refer to a time period prior to the inclusion of the USADA as a body the athlete is bound to in relation to doping violations? It sounds to me like Armstrong's attorneys are making the case that those years before and including 2004) would have to be handled by the UCI, and the affidavit merely states the fact that the language was not part of his application prior to 2004, and thus he is not contractually obligated to arbitrate through USADA for violations that occurred during that time frame because the UCI would be the appropriate authority there as they were referenced and the case isn't being brought by anyone else listed on those applications.

2. Lance's lawyers are trying to establish that there is an ADR process within the UCI's rules that would allow this case to be heard, and there is even though it is never used. The evidence is not known, and thus the details may possibly give the UCI jurisdiction to undertake a case against Armstrong (in the event that the substantial part of the case occurred prior to 2004), and that the UCI has a mechanism for such a process as referenced by the UCI ADR.

3. It appears to me that the question being presented is not whether the USADA has jurisdiction, but whether the better option would be for the UCI to undertake the arbitration because of the issue of what Lance signed up for when he applied to the licenses prior to 2004. The facts presented infer that the evidence shows the most likely time frame for any violation includes a period where the USADA did not have legal authority at the time (irrespective of any subsequent agreement that gave them jurisdiction for prior years), and thus the UCI would be the better forum because they were included on every application Armstrong made for a license and they also have a formal procedure for conducting an arbitration.

4. The affidavit was a response to specific questions by Hermen to Farrell, and does not indicate that Farrell is taking a legal stance on the validity of anything contained within Lance's motion. As Technical Director of USA Cycling, and therefore a member of the UCI as part of a national federation, he is not really in a position to deny answering the questions considering that the UCI is arguing (at least in letters) that they have jurisdiction. To me, the affidavit reads like this: "Here is an answer to the questions you sent me. You make the argument to the court, I am not going to give narrative either way about the validity therein but I will answer your questions."

5. Interestingly, the UCI is not intervening [under FRCP Rule 24(B)(1)(a)] in the case and asking the court to decide whether they or the USADA have the jurisdiction to hear the case. They obviously provide their opinion they do in an affidavit, but they are not asking the judge to make that call, Lance is. That is a much weaker call as the judge will surely wonder why a body insisting that they have the right to conduct the investigation is not a party to a legal action asking that question to be answered. I find that little tidbit to be quite the strange little fact indeed.

6. Most importantly, the judge was clear in his charge when he allowed for the additional time to file the answer to the USADA's motion to dismiss regarding Armstrong's need to establish the jurisdiction for HIS court. He didn't ask them to figure out who gets to hear the arbitration, he wants to know why they are trying to include him in their dispute, and from what I read, none of that answers that question AT ALL. The judge does not appear to be the type to enjoy having his directives avoided, and from what I read, that is precisely what they did. They have made no compelling case that the US Federal Courts are the place for Armstrong's lawyers to be throwing their little hissy fit.

I think people are missing the forest for the trees. Sparks asked for DETAIL about why HIS COURT should have jurisdiction. This ****ing contest about who should hear the arbitration is NOT what he asked for AT ALL. Who has the right to hear the arbitration has NOTHING to do with whether a Federal District Court of the United States of America has the right to get involved in a process that contractually has an arbitration agreement. And all this affidavit did was help PROVE that there is a legally arbitration agreement with SOMEONE. That being the case, Spark's job is pretty ease IMO. Armstrong's attorneys just said that arbitration somewhere is valid, thus the Federal courts are not the place for any of this.

If the UCI wants to hear the case, they need to intervene or file their own suit...and my guess is that once Sparks dismisses, that is exactly what they will do.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Is it possible than Armstrong lawyers are playing their own separate game with Armstrong and taking him down avenues that will lead him to years of litigation that they must be rubbing their hands together in glee?

Maybe wishful thinking on my part.

How much do we expect of Judge Sparks to be researching the background to this sorry doping saga?

Will he be reading the SCA case for example or just dealing with what was placed in front of him by Armstrong and USADA?

Likley he will have some articling student pull up only the relevent info needed and will not complicate his life by considering the subsequent consequences of his ruling. I personally don't think he gives a shyyte about Armstrong as his first dismissal was unsympathetic to say the least.