USADA - Armstrong

[the big ring]

Curious how the whole, "USADA is a state actor" thing has so completely been forgotten. Or am I missing something? Now it seems entirely about UCI having jurisdiction.

 

[Merckx index]

That being the case, reading Farrell's affidavit (he was answering questions posted by Hermen, not making statements), it seems apparent that Armstrong's attorneys are setting up the argument that the licenses applied to prior to 2004 do not include language that ARMSTRONG UNDERSTOOD bound him to submission to the process of the USADA as they were not included on the language of the license until 2004. If the evidence being used is primarily from before 2004, then there is a case gets sticky because the license is still a two party contract (an adhesion contract at that), so forcing retroactive provisions on a party is VERY sticky.

Yes, I think this is crucial. I pointed this out in #6597:

2. The jurisdiction issue. USADA claims authority if no sample collection is involved. Fine. McQuaid puts forth the alternative argument about discovery, but if USADA really has evidence that precedes and goes beyond the Landis confession, then UCI has no response but to say that they haven’t seen that evidence. Presumably it will be presented in due course.

But what about the counter-argument that UCI did not sign on to USADA/WADA until August 2004? Does this negate USADA’s authority to bring charges over events prior to that date? USADA seems to be vulnerable here. I haven’t seen them offer an argument against this, though they may in the response to the filing that LA’s lawyers just made to Sparks.

But you have taken the idea further. I never thought of this possibility:

Also from the Farrell affidavit, if both bodies have an arbitration process that runs concurrently today (an argument set up in the affidavit), but one of them did not have a process that existed at a certain point that includes evidence of that particular time, then an argument can be made that the entity that had the continual arbitration process throughout the time frame of the violations is in a better position to conduct the case against the athlete.

I don't know the strength of this argument. But presumably USADA will argue in much the same way they plan to argue against the SOL--that they were in charge after 2004, so any evidence prior to that date which is clearly related to, an extension of, events following that date, is fair game for them. I know this is common in other areas. For example, the IRS is normally allowed to audit taxpayer returns going back only three years. But if they find evidence in those three years that suggest irregularities in earlier years, then they can audit returns in those earlier years. But of course the IRS has existed all along, whereas USADA has not.

Also, I can't remember for sure, but when LA's lawyers responded to USADA's original charging letter, while they disputed the ability of USADA to sanction outside of the eight year SOL, they did not, did they, ever bring up the argument that even if there were no SOL, USADA still would not have jurisdiction because UCI had not signed on to them then? Isn't this a new argument?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102387437/...-for-Dismissal

USADA files for dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction

So now the judge has everything he needs to make a decision?

Jesus, just started reading it and found a spelling error in the TOC. Not a good start for USADA, come on you high-priced lawyers.

LOL, one of the attachments is a video interview of Pat saying "it has nothing to do with UCI". But two copies of that video, another mistake.

Curious how the whole, "USADA is a state actor" thing has so completely been forgotten. Or am I missing something? Now it seems entirely about UCI having jurisdiction.

No, LA’s brief to the court said they still believe USADA is a state actor. But wisely, they are not basing their case on that.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102387437/USADA-Reply-for-Dismissal

USADA files for dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Yep, I missed a basic fact. Under the interpretations of the FAA, if you agreed to arbitrate in any instance, the arbitrator gets to decide the scope of the arbitration. You may appeal afterwards, but not before. So the arbitrators get to decide whether their reach includes years previous to 2004.

Wow, the USADA is putting on a clinic of legal discourse and competency. The difference between this and the helter skelter approach of Hermen and Armstrong is striking. Kudos USADA. Kudos.

 

[DomesticDomestique]

With regards to Marti, I think people are failing to acknowledge USADA's conflicting goals.

SHORT TERM: Keep things private, so that Lance doesn't have the ability to prepare for specifics that USADA is holding up their sleeve.

LONG TERM: Expose everything to show the public what scum Lance really is.

If they have full control over the timing of the hearings (i.e. can push Marti out past LA) then they may want a public hearing. But if they can't control the timeline, then they would want to avoid a public hearing at all cost.

 

[Maxiton]

From the outside looking in the Contador angle makes sense.
What better way to legally drive the knife in...

unless revenge is not Conti's thing.

Does not make sense that Armstrong could benefit with Pepe doing arb...

I think even if revenge is not Contador's thing - and it may not be - he'd be willing to make an exception in Armstrong's case.

As for Marti's testimony: as far as Marti and USADA are concerned, this is about Armstrong, not Contador. I think he'll be careful not to say anything that harms Contador directly, and USADA will maybe be careful not to go there.

PS. I love that this image was made just prior to Contador leaving Armstrong behind in the blowing dust.

 

[frenchfry]

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-An...Doping-Organizations/The-Code/QA-on-the-Code/

WADA reports cases of non-compliance to its stakeholders who have jurisdiction to impose sanctions, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The Olympic charter was amended in 2003 to state that adoption of the Code by the Olympic movement is mandatory. Only sports that adopt and implement the Code can be included and remain in the program of the Olympic Games.

Does this mean that this could be Fat Pat's last opportunity to step up to the Olympic trough?

 

[Deagol]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102387437/USADA-Reply-for-Dismissal

USADA files for dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction

I'm not a lawyer, but reading this, it appears that USADA has mopped the floor with the UCI's argument for juristiction.

Edit: I just noticed footnote #8, Page 6- hilarious, using LA team's own arguments against them, as they contradict themselves

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

I think even if revenge is not Contador's thing - and it may not be - he'd be willing to make an exception in Armstrong's case.

As for Marti's testimony: as far as Marti and USADA are concerned, this is about Armstrong, not Contador. I think he'll be careful not to say anything that harms Contador directly, and USADA will maybe be careful not to go there.

PS. I love that this image was made just prior to Contador leaving Armstrong behind in the blowing dust.

I would forget the revenge theory....Bert has to keep his nose out of trouble to the extent that will be possible once the witnesses start gushing. Chasing Lance to tank him would not be the wisest use of his time or money.

 

[BroDeal]

When do Ferrari and Del Moral do an about face and ask for arbitration? Del Moral would seem to be in a good positition because he left Postal way outside the statute of limitations. While Armstrong has certainly engaged in all sorts of acts to hide his doping, what has Del Moral done?

 

[Benotti69]

Jose Pepe Marti has been in cycling for a long time as a trainer - a "preparer" of sorts. As far as I can tell, he was mostly recently involved at Astana as Contador's personal trainer. According to this quote, they were quite close:

"And Pepe always travels with him?

Yes, to all training expeditions and competitions."


http://astanafans.com/alberto-contador-a-soigneurs-eye-view.html

Marti has already been sanctioned. He's done. Finished as far as the UCI, teams, organizers and federations are willing to put distance between themselves and him.

So now he requests arbitration? Why? He has to know that the likelihood of winning in arbitration are tiny. His future prospects in cycling are unlikely to change - he's beyond tainted. Why now? Why the delay between accepting his fate and making this unusual request for arbitration? How much will it cost him to fight this? Plenty, I imagine, because it involves arbitration on a different continent. Flights, accomodations, representation, investigators, etc, etc. Who is paying for this?

The only thing that makes sense is that someone, or some small group with a sense of humor and a taste for sticking in the knife are willing to bankroll Marti's arbitration defense with the purpose of humliating at least one person (Armstrong) or more (Bruyneel, Weisel et al).

I wonder how long before Marti requests that his hearing is made public?

John Swanson

I am guessing Marti is asking his clients to front up with his pension or he squeals.

 

[MarkvW]

With regards to Marti, I think people are failing to acknowledge USADA's conflicting goals.

SHORT TERM: Keep things private, so that Lance doesn't have the ability to prepare for specifics that USADA is holding up their sleeve.

LONG TERM: Expose everything to show the public what scum Lance really is.

If they have full control over the timing of the hearings (i.e. can push Marti out past LA) then they may want a public hearing. But if they can't control the timeline, then they would want to avoid a public hearing at all cost.

If Lance contests, he'll get to see the evidence so he has plenty of time to prepare. USADA is not going to hold a darn thing up their sleeve.

 

[Merckx index]

Check out exhibit CC, a letter from Howman that expands on the brief points made on the WADA website yesterday:

Therefore, as explained above, and based on the facts known to us at this stage, it seems clear under the Code that USADA has results management authority to proceed in the Armstrong case. We must say that the clarity and common acceptance of the principles I have outlined above make UCI’s efforts to deny USADA’s results management authority frankly incomprehensible.

In fact, the UCI itself has regularly shown to be quite satisfied with the due process provided in USADA hearings. In both the Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis cases, involving top UCI pro team riders, UCI fully entrusted USADA with handling both the American Arbitration Association (AAA) hearings (which as you know involve Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) arbitrators) and the CAS appeals. In both of these high profile cases, one of which ultimately resulted in the loss of a Tour de France title, UCI had the opportunity to participate as a party or an observer and, despite requests to participate and assist with the costs, chose not to do so and left the cases completely up to USADA. We can only imagine that if UCI had real concern about the USADA processes it would have taken part in those cases. We have never previously heard any complaint from you or anyone associated with the UCI in relation to the due process given in USADA proceedings which have to date been exemplary in terms of the process given to athletes and take place in front of reputable arbitration institutions.

Further it has not escaped us that the due process and results management arguments raised by the UCI were not forwarded by the UCI until after those arguments were first advanced by Lance Armstrong’s legal team in a lawsuit against USADA.

Bock:

While the UCI claims to have “discovered” the rule violations at issue, this is not through
application of Article 15.3 of the Code but rather through application of Article 10 of the UCI
Anti-Doping Rules (“UCI ADR”). However, in Article 10 of the UCI ADR the UCI has
impermissibly overlaid upon Article 15.3 qualifications to that Code Article which greatly
expand the likelihood that the UCI and not other ADOs such as NOCs or NADOs will be
considered the discoverer of rule violations where no sample collection is involved…A s explained above, the UCI cannot broaden its purported results management authority at the expense of other ADOs by attempting to amend Article 15.3 of the Code. Yet, this is exactly what the UCI has sought to do through UCI ADR Art. 10 and this is why this provision in the UCI ADR is unenforceable.

Same point Anna Zimmerman made. Surprising, though, that Bock would go on to suggest a UCI rule is at fault. Why didn’t WADA protest against this before?

I can share with you that a USADA representative met with an individual close to Mr. Landis (an individual who has incidentally never been a UCI license holder or official) weeks before the April 30 email was sent and in that meeting USADA received much of the same information from this intermediary that was subsequently contained in the email. USADA also met with Mr. Landis about ten days before the email was sent. Before the email was sent USADA had met with several others with relevant information.

Of course, the UCI is unaware of these meetings because the UCI has never met with Mr. Landis or any of USADA’s many other witnesses concerning their observations and the UCI has apparently never conducted even the beginning of an investigation regarding Mr. Landis’s evidence or the evidence from any other cyclist on the U.S. Postal Service Cycling team at anytime.

...So, in your own words UCI claims both to have “discovered” a violation and to not know whether a violation occurred. This is exactly the sort of “Never, Never Land” created by the UCI’s nonsensical discovery rule and it well illustrates why that rule cannot possibly be enforceable under the Code.

Bingo! USADA suggests they go directly to CAS:

USADA recognizes, however, that both the UCI and Mr. Armstrong have already confirmed that they have faith in, and have agreed to, CAS arbitration. Accordingly, USADA proposes that it is willing to agree to a single, final and binding CAS hearing with Mr. Armstrong under U.S. law and the USADA Protocol and held in the U.S. but with international CAS arbitrators in which the issues would be whether Mr. Armstrong committed anti-doping rule violations and, if so, the appropriate sanctions. If the parties are truly interested in an efficient, fair and just result based on the evidence, as USADA is, then this proposal would immediately place the case in the hands of neutral CAS arbitrators who could quickly decide it.

 

[BroDeal]

Is Marti's hearing really going to be public? The USADA statement uses the word "public" but that part reads like a jab against Armstrong's characterization of the process. It is not clear from the statement that Marti asked for a public hearing.

 

[MacRoadie]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102387437/USADA-Reply-for-Dismissal

USADA files for dismissal due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Could Bock's letter be any more of a ***** slap?

It is also clear that UCI’s effort set forth in your August 3 letter to attempt to obstruct USADA’scases and to attempt to “den[y] USADA any authority to act or proceed on the basis of [the UCI]ADR or any other rule of the UCI or otherwise on behalf of UCI and/or USA Cycling” is offensive to clean sport and clean athlete’s rights and repugnant to the Code and in direct conflictwith UCI’s duties under the Code.

 

[Velodude]

There may be a bit of a problem with enforcing a judgement...

The main defense in a US jurisdiction against enforcing an international judgment against a judgment debtor's local assets (here read LA) residing within the jurisdiction is the judgment could not have been obtained under US law.

The sticking point is that Constitution. Freedom of speech, right to bear arms etc.

Don't think that obtaining a financial settlement by fraud in a UK or any court is unconstitutional.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Is Marti's hearing really going to be public? The USADA statement uses the word "public" but that part reads like a jab against Armstrong's characterization of the process. It is not clear from the statement that Marti asked for a public hearing.

We know Marti has chosen arbitration. "Mr. Martí wanted to have his case heard in the arbitration process"

We don't know if it will be public. That's an open question for now.

 

[Deagol]

Could Bock's letter be any more of a ***** slap?

and this:

Of course, the UCI is unaware of these meetings because the UCI has never met with Mr. Landis or any of USADA’s many other witnesses concerning their observations and the UCI has apparently never conducted even the beginning of an investigation regarding Mr. Landis’s evidence or the evidence from any other cyclist on the U.S. Postal Service Cycling team at anytime.
The utter lack of investigation into the facts by the UCI lays bare the absurdity of UCI’s“discovery” claim under Art. 10 of the UCI ADR


....

in your own words UCI claims both to have “discovered” a violation and to not know whether a violation occurred. This is exactly the sort of “Never, Never Land” created by the UCI’s nonsensical discovery rule and it well illustrates why that rule cannot possibly be enforceable under the Code.

 

[MarkvW]

Is Marti's hearing really going to be public? The USADA statement uses the word "public" but that part reads like a jab against Armstrong's characterization of the process. It is not clear from the statement that Marti asked for a public hearing.

The word public was put there for a reason. We all know that the athlete also has a (default) right to a private hearing.

USADA also didn't make any mention of cause for excusing Mr. Marti for missing the deadline. Absent cause, any rider could blow off the deadline for any reason. In the long term such an outcome would be intolerable to USADA, because people could always cite Marti as precedent for deadline exceptions.

But a trade for a public hearing . . . Might be worth it from USADA's POV.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Wow, the USADA is putting on a clinic of legal discourse and competency. The difference between this and the helter skelter approach of Hermen and Armstrong is striking. Kudos USADA. Kudos.

My recollection is this has been a common Team Wonderboy strategy. Delay, deny, argue, then finally get to some critical deadline and do a private deal and then declare themselves the winner. Wonderboy is an exception to the rules. Always.

 

[sniper]

Check out exhibit CC, a letter from Howman that expands on the brief points made on the WADA website yesterday:

Thanks MI. I thought this (as well as the other bits you quoted) was very strong and to the point. I assume Howman here speaks for most of us Clinicians:

We must say that the clarity and common acceptance of the principles I have outlined above make UCI’s efforts to deny USADA’s results management authority frankly incomprehensible.

 

[MacRoadie]

and this:

Of course, the UCI is unaware of these meetings because the UCI has never met with Mr. Landis or any of USADA’s many other witnesses concerning their observations and the UCI has apparently never conducted even the beginning of an investigation regarding Mr. Landis’s evidence or the evidence from any other cyclist on the U.S. Postal Service Cycling team at anytime.

And this...:

Interestingly, on the very same day that you forwarded your letter,Lance Armstrong’s attorneys made this identical claim in a brief filed in their lawsuit againstUSADA in federal court in the United States. Mr. Armstrong’s attorneys even cited four CAS cases (all involving the UCI or its members) in support of this contention.

This coincidence is even more interesting given the fact that on July 11, 2012, just two days before you sent your initial letter to USADA challenging USADA’s results management jurisdiction you stated that in relation to the “ongoing USADA Armstrong case” the “position of UCI is that we’re not involved in this, and it’s a USADA investigation. They’re doing all theprocess in the United States. It’s nothing to do with UCI, and we’ll wait and see what theeventual outcome is.”

In my earlier letter to you I pointed out that after USADA initiated its cases you had publiclyconfirmed that USADA had results management jurisdiction. However, in your August 3response you expressed concern about my reference to your comments as quoted by reporters.Therefore, with respect to the above quote used in this letter I have provided a certified transcriptas Exhibit “A” to this letter and you may refer to the transcript in order to confirm that you werequoted correctly. I further believe that you will find that there is no question that these were your words and that no mistake has been made about the context in which they were spoken, because the video of you making this statement is available online at:
http://www.sporza.be/cm/sporza/videozone/MG_sportnieuws/MG_wielrennen/1.1363787.

*****

Slap

 

[Microchip]

It appears to be an assumption here that UCI's attempt to obtain jurisdiction is with the unique objective of stopping any action against Armstrong.

In truth!! Good observation! We've concluded that they're batting for Lance...but not necessarily.

This takes "fair / due process" to another level. USADA are bending over backwards, repeatedly, for these guys. Incredible.

Microchip needs to get a wriggle one, there's toons waiting here

Too funny...!!

No.....but expect lots of billable hours for all involved the next few hours, days and week.

Don't worry. I have the pacer account fired up and read to post

Such an avalanche of Pelotoon material...such little time!

 

[DirtyWorks]

The word public was put there for a reason. We all know that the athlete also has a (default) right to a private hearing.

USADA also didn't make any mention of cause for excusing Mr. Marti for missing the deadline. Absent cause, any rider could blow off the deadline for any reason. In the long term such an outcome would be intolerable to USADA, because people could always cite Marti as precedent for deadline exceptions.

But a trade for a public hearing . . . Might be worth it from USADA's POV.

Does Marti have a UCI license??? I read it for the sixth time and maybe they struck a deal? We'll gift you arbitration but it has to be public. Tantalizing. If evidence leaks, we'll know.

 

[Benotti69]

And this...:

*****

Slap

Ouch, i bet that hurt

 

[MacRoadie]

I can share with you that a USADA representative met with an individual close to Mr. Landis (an individual who has incidentally never been a UCI license holder or official) weeks before the April 30 email was sent and in that meeting USADA received much of the same information from this intermediary that was subsequently contained in the email. USADA also met with Mr. Landis about ten days before the email was sent. Before the email was sent USADA had met with several others with relevant information.

Checkmate?