USADA - Armstrong

[mwbyrd]

And when does that happen in real life? That you demand evidence of an arresting officer and he provides it to you, allowing you to decide if it's fair and just that he put handcuffs on you and cart you off to a holding cell.

When?

Are you seriously saying this is what happens?

Beats me, I'm lucky enough to have never been in this situation. But it sure seems to be the case for LA.

Just read this on Velonews from Tygart: Tygart fires back
Reached for comment on McQuaid’s statements, USADA CEO Travis Tygart wrote to VeloNews via email: “UCI’s various contrasting positions and public comments concerning our USPS case are baffling, especially in light of the fact that we have offered to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and have all the evidence of the USPS doping conspiracy presented in open court for the independent judges to consider and ultimately decide once and for all. We will continue to do our job on behalf of clean athletes and pressure from external sources including UCI’s will not prevent us from simply doing the job we are mandated to do.”

Funny, Judge Sparks seems to disagree....

 

[Merckx index]

Frankly, I've been surprised that USADA has been so reluctant to simply let it all out at this point, because the risk of "witness intimidation" would seem to be pretty small, given that every move Armstrong makes is going to be so closely scrutinized. He'd be an idiot to actually try to intimidate any of the 10+ former teammates at this point. Not saying he wouldn't try, but doing so would expose him to the same thing he complains USADA is guilty of, i.e., potential federal bribery and witness tampering charges. This isn't the mafia and he's not going to put out "hits" on the witnesses, and eventually USADA is going to have to release all of this stuff anway, so why not just do so at the earliest possible moment in order to avoid any claims that the proceedings are fundamentally tainted because of a failure to protect Armstrong's due process rights? It really is baffling, because if they'd just do so, it would take the wind out of much of what Armstrong's lawyers sails are currently filled with.

I appreciate your posts, and I agree, have felt this way from the beginning (see post #1191). Charging letters are supposed to present dates and other specific information. They usually involve positive tests (which is why the record is 58-2; actually it's more like 400-2, the 58 refers to cases that are actually challenged, that go to arbitration, most don't), and the substance detected, the amount, the nature of the test, and so on is all given to the rider. If USADA is to be consistent with its own precedent in these cases, they have to make a better effort to present detail in this case.

As I pointed out before, and as Python has also said, it's possible to present this information without naming witnesses, if USADA really believes intimidation is a potential problem. But like QS, I never understood how intimidation could be a major factor when 1) there are surely signed statements, and 2) LA's every move will be closely monitored. He might intimidate by trying to get the rider blackballed from the industry (like Frankie), but if a rider is vulnerable to that kind of threat, he will know that it can happen anyway after any hearing in which his name has to come out. Really, when the riders agreed to meet with USADA and give statements, they must have known they were burning a lot of bridges. I don't see how LA can make their problems much worse.

Not to mention the fact that the anonymity of these witnesses is a charade. Anyone with any interest in this case knows who most of them are. Why hasn't LA already begun pressuring some of them? Or do some people here think he has? And since there are supposed to be more than ten of them, I don't see that providing some specific details from 1-2 of them can possibly hurt USADA's case.

Originally Posted by Alpe d'Huez
That didn't stop him from trying to intimidate Hamilton during the Federal investigation where he was potentially facing prison time. He got away with that scot free. So why would he not try the same tactic during the USADA investigation?

I feel sorry for Tyler, I wish witnesses did not have to put up with this crap, but nothing LA could have done in that restaurant would have changed Tyler's testimony, either to the GJ or in public. At most, it could have intimidated him from speaking truthfully if there had been a subsequent trial, but the fact that he changed his testimony would have been obvious (and would have put TH at risk of perjury)--just as it would be obvious if witnesses in this case changed their testimony from USADA hearing to CAS, or from their signed statement to any hearing. Also, the very fact that we all know about this action by LA shows how hard it is for him to hide any attempts at intimidation. He isn't very subtle.

 

[Race Radio]

That didn't stop him from trying to intimidate Hamilton during the Federal investigation where he was potentially facing prison time. He got away with that scot free. So why would he not try the same tactic during the USADA investigation?

Hamilton is not the only person connected with this case to be followed, threatened, and harassed. There is a pattern of harassment that only enhances the conspiracy argument.

 

[Race Radio]

Beats me, I'm lucky enough to have never been in this situation.

It is good of you to admit you don't know what you are talking about

 

[spalco]

It's like saying the Police showing up at your door and accuse you of theft or some other crime. You ask for evidence and they say, we will give you that after we go to trial in front of a judge...

Um, yeah, that's exactly how it goes, doesn't it?

Obviously nobody would want to go to arbitration in Armstrong's shoes, but it's not about what he wants, it's about what he legally agreed on to do and not to do and the consequences for breaking those agreements.

 

[MarkvW]

And when does that happen in real life? That you demand evidence of an arresting officer and he provides it to you, allowing you to decide if it's fair and just that he put handcuffs on you and cart you off to a holding cell.

When?

Are you seriously saying this is what happens?

The due process that you get for a crime, even a DWI, is much more than the due process that you get for a civil proceeding. Arguing that Armstrong isn't getting criminal-level due process is the same thing as saying that Armstrong is not getting something that he is not entitled to get.

There is a legitimate due process dialog going on in this case, but nobody is arguing that Armstrong gets criminal-level due process.

 

[Turner29]

Beats me, I'm lucky enough to have never been in this situation. But it sure seems to be the case for LA.

Just read this on Velonews from Tygart: Tygart fires back
Reached for comment on McQuaid’s statements, USADA CEO Travis Tygart wrote to VeloNews via email: “UCI’s various contrasting positions and public comments concerning our USPS case are baffling, especially in light of the fact that we have offered to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and have all the evidence of the USPS doping conspiracy presented in open court for the independent judges to consider and ultimately decide once and for all. We will continue to do our job on behalf of clean athletes and pressure from external sources including UCI’s will not prevent us from simply doing the job we are mandated to do.”

Funny, Judge Sparks seems to disagree....

I am not sure what your point is but IMHO, Sparks is merely looking for a charging statement more inline with that of a criminal investigation, not detailed evidence.

The charging statement need to contain witness names, rather, something more like "on July 14, 2003, witnesses will testify seeing Lance Armstrong being administered blood products in violation of Prohibited Substance and Method List Paragraph XYZ..."

 

[mwbyrd]

Criminal or Civil, shouldn't everyone be allowed Due Process?

 

[Turner29]

Criminal or Civil, shouldn't everyone be allowed Due Process?

Due process is there if you take the time to understand the full process.

 

[mwbyrd]

Even if LA agreed to use Arbitration to solve any rules infractions, don't you believe he would have thought/assumed that he would have been given the evidence against him so that he could defend himself?

Wouldn't you assume the same?

 

[MarkvW]

That didn't stop him from trying to intimidate Hamilton during the Federal investigation where he was potentially facing prison time. He got away with that scot free. So why would he not try the same tactic during the USADA investigation?

I see what you're saying, but USADA has to come out of the woodwork sooner or later. It's not a question of whether USADA should put all its cards on the table--it's just a question of when.

Sorry about the mixed metaphor.

 

[spalco]

Criminal or Civil, shouldn't everyone be allowed Due Process?

Armstrong gets his due process, when the case goes to arbitration.

What he's trying to do is deny the charges and not even show up to court to have the subject adressed. That's not due process, that's claiming you're above the law.

 

[mwbyrd]

I'm fine with this, but why wasn't it originally included? USADA's lawyers should know better.

 

[MarkvW]

Criminal or Civil, shouldn't everyone be allowed Due Process?

Everyone should also be allowed ice cream! But how much ice cream should everyone get? That is the question.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Even if LA agreed to use Arbitration to solve any rules infractions, don't you believe he would have thought/assumed that he would have been given the evidence against him so that he could defend himself?

Wouldn't you assume the same?

Ah, the due process is that if he wishes to contest the sanctions he requests arbitration which means he then gets the evidence.
That's the agreed process.

 

[caryopsis]

Even if LA agreed to use Arbitration to solve any rules infractions, don't you believe he would have thought/assumed that he would have been given the evidence against him so that he could defend himself?

Wouldn't you assume the same?

he WILL be given all the evidence, once the (arbitration) process actually starts. he's asking for it outside the process while simultaneously trying to stop the process from beginning. the only place he's trying to defend himself now is public opinion (and of course defend his position with the case in front of Judge Sparks) - he hasn't even entered the arbitration process yet, the outcome of which is not predetermined.

but I suppose you might've already known this. others have already said as much, but seems like you're not here to listen.

 

[caryopsis]

Armstrong gets his due process, when the case goes to arbitration.

What he's trying to do is deny the charges and not even show up to court to have the subject adressed. That's not due process, that's claiming you're above the law.

+1 cheers.

 

[Race Radio]

Even if LA agreed to use Arbitration to solve any rules infractions, don't you believe he would have thought/assumed that he would have been given the evidence against him so that he could defend himself?

Wouldn't you assume the same?

Armstrong will get all the evidence and be able to cross examine witnesses. Wonderboy and his lawyers are claiming otherwise as party of their media campaign but that has little basis in reality

 

[Muriel]

Sparks did not refer to a particular USADA rule either but he did have his researchers look into it. They looked at other USADA cases and found that Armstrong's charging letter lacked the specificity of those cases.

Cheers RR. That's the kind of info I was after.

And thank you too to ChewbaccaD and QuickStepper, your discussion has helped me greatly to understand some important issues.

 

[QuickStepper]

I appreciate your legal expertise, but you aren't keeping up with this case very well. All of the answers you point to did not satisfy the judge that Armstrong's attorneys had answered his jurisdictional question. Again, I point to the clear message he gave when he allowed the extension to Armstrong's attorneys for their reply to the USADA's motion to dismiss. He CLEARLY stated that Armstrong's attorney's HAD YET to adequately address the issue of jurisdiction in any way. So your point one, two, and three don't seem to recognize that the judge has already made clear that they hadn't addressed SMJ AT ALL.

Nor does it seem you have read the USADA's response to Armstrong's response to the motion to dismiss. The primary thrust IS NOT the Stevens Act. That is merely a component of a comprehensive discussion of the issue. It seems you like reading Armstrong's filings, but don't want to read everything else that has been filed. I would suggest you do so before posting anymore as it will surely enhance the information and opinion you provide here.

Again, with all due respect, the Order granting the extension to file briefs last week (number 43 on the Court's docket in PACER) contains no such statement by Judge Sparks. This is what the order granting the request (and denying it in part) actually said:

"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."

Nowhere did the court conclude that Armstrong had not yet satisfied the Court with respect to the jurisdictional issue. The court merely stated that Armstrong has the burden of proof on that issue, and that he had already had since July 9 to "marshal his evidence on that point" and as such, the Court was not going to grant any more time than the one day which was granted, principally because he didn't want to penalize the defendants by limiting their time to respond. Still, the court relieved Armstrong from the failure to timely file that had occurred by reason of his lawyers' misreading of the local rules re: time for filing response, noting that "the Court wishes to have the benefit of meaningful breifing by Armstrong."

But again, with all due respect, the court did not say what you suggest was said, either expressly or by implication. Instead, the Court noted who has the burden of proof and simply said that he was not inclined to grant the full time requested by Armstrong's lawyers.

I will say it again: I have read all of the filings. I do think we just will have to agree to disagree about what they say and what they mean.

 

[BYOP88]

Lets hope next friday is a great day for us all and Sparks sends Pharmstrong down the crapper!

I have a friend who's looking for summer job, how much does a Lance fan boy make per hour? Where does my friend sign up, can one of the fanboys tell me and if it helps speed up the process my friend has no interest in cycling so I'm sure he'd fit right in. He just wants to make some easy $$$$.

 

[MarkvW]

Armstrong’s lawyer Herman believes the system of arbitration will not provide a just and fair playing field. USADA’s record of cases which go to arbitration is 58-2, according to USA Today.

That is a painfully weak argument. You don't throw that kind of thing in front of a judge unless you are desperate.

 

[thehog]

That didn't stop him from trying to intimidate Hamilton during the Federal investigation where he was potentially facing prison time. He got away with that scot free. So why would he not try the same tactic during the USADA investigation?

If only people knew the half of it. That was probably the tamest of the incidents.

There has been a serial campagin of intimidation and "following".

 

[QuickStepper]

What's crazy is that the judge states, ""I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks."

Yet the Lance Haters don't seem to care about this. I just ask all the 'Haters' to put themselves in LA's shoes and see how they would feel to be in this position. To me, this is a huge issue that needs to be addressed. I would want to go to arbitration if I was in a similar situation, would you?

It's like saying the Police showing up at your door and accuse you of theft or some other crime. You ask for evidence and they say, we will give you that after we go to trial in front of a judge...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

 

[TheMight]

How does the omerta in cycling work?

I've been pondering this UCI madness.

If there was outright tampering with test results, testing or somehow race results that just has to be nuclear. I can't imagine that there is any hard evidence left. They are almost certainly stupid but I just can't imagine that they are that stupid. What could it be?

What kind of makes sense to me would be in these 10 confessions that USADA has, say 3-5 of them already told the UCI and the UCI did nothing. Claimed it wasn't good evidence or just ignored it all. If I was going to back JV's new team and we were going over his business plan and how it was a "clean team" and everything, there would be some questions asked along the way; while I don't know what I'd do when I got the answers exactly, I might ask him to confess to UCI or USA Cycling as part of the deal and try to get some assurances that he wouldn't be a disruption to the team I was investing in or at least find his level of commitment to clean cycling.

If I was a mid-tier rider, I might tell UCI about some things I saw, especially if I wanted to ride clean and was coerced in to a programme or maybe had my career stalled on a team because I wasn't a "team player." Why do the foot soldiers keep quiet exactly? What's the downside, the mob kills informers. I understand not having a press conference about it, but what keeps you from telling the cycling authorities about it?