USADA - Armstrong

[zigmeister]

The request for more information from either party, particularly USADA, does not bode well for them.

 

[Turner29]

The request for more information from either party, particularly USADA, does not bode well for them.

Not at all, given the judge's known attention to detail.

 

[Turner29]

Not needed, Sparks demands all the evidence be presented NOW in public

He made no such demand.

as he should with his bosses on the radar for sure.

Judge Sparks has no "bosses."

 

[Elagabalus]

He made no such demand.



Judge Sparks has no "bosses."

What do you mean no bosses? He takes orders directly from the UMSeT*!


*unligit murky secret tribunal

 

[Race Radio]

The request for more information from either party, particularly USADA, does not bode well for them.

There was no request for any more information. The Judge gave each side a week to submit additional information if they felt that it was needed.

I expect that USADA will submit something that clearly outlines the topics discussed in the courtroom and Armstrong will submit yet another rambling, babbling, pile of obfuscation.

 

[Oldman]

Remember the movie, The Sting? It starred Paul Newman and Robert Redford, who cheated the cheaters.

With that in mind, it won't be enough to show that Armstrong doped and cheated if the goal is to bring him to karmic justice. Too many casual fans will conclude that Armstrong merely cheated the era's cheaters, thus is a kind of folk hero for doing it with such success.

That sums up the position of my bike mates in America who, not being blind or stupid, accept the facts of Armstrong's doping but nevertheless give him a pass. I would not call these people fanboys. They're just typical of many people who only want to get some fun and fitness out of biking and are not outraged by a "doper among dopers" at the sharp end of the sport.

As the USADA case progresses, it will be critical to show the conspiracy between Armstrong and UCI. That is what it will take to destroy LA's reputation, once and for all.

With what's at stake here your point and the judge's care to detail is appropriate. If the long term target is indeed beyond Lance the evidence is going to need to be solid.

 

[Turner29]

With what's at stake here your point and the judge's care to detail is appropriate. If the long term target is indeed beyond Lance the evidence is going to need to be solid.

It is not about going beyond Lance and US Postal, at least regarding the USADA.

 

[AcademyCC]

Ideally I want Armstrong to go down. That would be great. In a perfect world I want Pat McQuaids head on a spike!

 

[MarkvW]

Ideally I want Armstrong to go down. That would be great. In a perfect world I want Pat McQuaids head on a spike!

McQuaid's just a stooge. He's there because he's the kind of guy that the federations want.

 

[D-Queued]

Ideally I want Armstrong to go down. That would be great. In a perfect world I want Pat McQuaids head on a spike!

I would be happy if Lance blamed it all on Hein & Pat.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Ideally I want Armstrong to go down. That would be great. In a perfect world I want Pat McQuaids head on a spike!

I want Chef Duffy to take a bullet for the team. Blame it on the fat guy in the white sneakers.

 

[veganrob]

I want Chef Duffy to take a bullet for the team. Blame it on the fat guy in the white sneakers.

Wow, that's cold man.

 

[MarkvW]

Wow, that's cold man.

I can just like, totally, see James Coburn saying that, man!

 

[JA.Tri]

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.



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.

Re: charging letters and enclosed detail

In "passport" matters, I would guess that details are far less precise?? more vague?? Therefore is the lack of current detail inconsistent with passport cases?

Carefully redacted evidence does seem to be a method of addressing USADA and Sparks, J concerns.

Intimidation can take a variety of forms and if so chosen there are many vectors to effect such action. I am sure LA has many agencies that could be used.

As to the impact of such action?? Recanting is a possibility (unlikely), depending on the force of arms that is brought to bear.

Minor aside: "riders agreed to meet with USADA"...I am unsure that this reasonably reflects the reality...it may...however "agreed" may not reflect the degree of "persuasion" involved.

As for making the riders' situations worse...under less testing circumstances I wouldn't dispute. However previous history indicates that LA can respond to actual/perceived "challenges" in a far more "rigorous" manner than most of us would ever consider. While LA is not prone to subtlety, if LA is as Machiavellian as has been previously considered, then yes, he certainly has the tools to make someone's life a nightmare.

Whatever the case, LA's powers of retribution would likely be significantly diminished once there is a general awareness of LA's entirety.

 

[BillytheKid]

Completely incorrect

WADA focuses on all Olympic sports, not just cycling. The do not test cycling more, in fact cycling is not even the 1st or 2nd most tested.

Seranno would not release any of the Puerto Evidence. It was not until he went on vacation that CONI was able to secure Valverde's samples via the proper channels

Are you suggesting that USADA should ignore over a dozen witnesses? Really?

I wonder how many dozen witnesses could be found against most of the pro peloton? This could establish a trend...not, only here, and only Armstrong. WADA does focus elsewhere as it should with proper testing, but this is mostly piggy backing off the GJ evidence. GJ's use to hand down an indictment or not. It this case, not. The evidence should stay sealed. I am really not sure when it became allowable to gift it to outside agencies.

I may be shooting in the dark, but has all the evidence seen full public disclosure? If this case relies on witnesses only, the evidence will someday be fully disclosed to the public as it should under the Freedom of Information Act I would hope. The troulble is, that it is usually the press that will file a complant under its first amendment rights in such a case. I really not sure the rules allow that for Amrstrong which is what I disagree with. His agreement with the USADA may not allow for it. The USADA has power and should investigate such cases, but I am only standing against a "trail by night" ruling where evidence is withheld and never seen by the public. It may stand for test results, but I am unconfortable with secret witnesses. Although this is not a court of law, it is another blow to indiviual rights if we are never see the evidence at hand. If it were out it the open as the ruling was annouced, I would not have a problem with it being used, but the GJ seal should be just that. Simple. One way or the other. To me sealed means sealed.
I know people want justice and it may be so here. Was this the path of BALCO?

Only my opinion and I not saying that evidence should ever be ignored. I am just confused on the legality of using GJ evidence here that may never be seen.

 

[MarkvW]

I am just confused on the legality of using GJ evidence here that may never be seen.

You should be confused! The evidence didn't come from the GJ! It came from the CIA! Hush! Don't tell anybody until Tuesday!

 

[D-Queued]

You should be confused! The evidence didn't come from the GJ! It came from the CIA! Hush! Don't tell anybody until Tuesday!

I thought it was from extraterrestrials.

Dave.

 

[JA.Tri]

The request for more information from either party, particularly USADA, does not bode well for them.

Situation Critical!

LA's defence team will easily provide all/surfeit information, in compliance with implied suggestion from Sparks, J. They had simply chosen not to on the numerous previous occasions...because they thought Sparks, J would be entertained by their theatrics.

And USADA will struggle and ultimately fail to provide any substance to support their contentions...because they are egregious, incompetent, intemperate idiots...and there was never any case in the first place. Their argument of intimidation etc was simply a smokescreen to disguise the total lack of facts. And they hold Sparks, J in total contempt and will be charged accordingly.

Slightly sarcastic . In fact I believe the reverse is far more likely to occur.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I wonder how many dozen witnesses could be found against most of the pro peloton? This could establish a trend...not, only here, and only Armstrong. WADA does focus elsewhere as it should with proper testing, but this is mostly piggy backing off the GJ evidence. GJ's use to hand down an indictment or not. It this case, not. The evidence should stay sealed. I am really not sure when it became allowable to gift it to outside agencies.

I may be shooting in the dark, but has all the evidence seen full public disclosure? If this case relies on witnesses only, the evidence will someday be fully disclosed to the public as it should under the Freedom of Information Act I would hope. The troulble is, that it is usually the press that will file a complant under its first amendment rights in such a case. I really not sure the rules allow that for Amrstrong which is what I disagree with. His agreement with the USADA may not allow for it. The USADA has power and should investigate such cases, but I am only standing against a "trail by night" ruling where evidence is withheld and never seen by the public. It may stand for test results, but I am unconfortable with secret witnesses. Although this is not a court of law, it is another blow to indiviual rights if we are never see the evidence at hand. If it were out it the open as the ruling was annouced, I would not have a problem with it being used, but the GJ seal should be just that. Simple. One way or the other. To me sealed means sealed.
I know people want justice and it may be so here. Was this the path of BALCO?

Only my opinion and I not saying that evidence should ever be ignored. I am just confused on the legality of using GJ evidence here that may never be seen.

Blue horseshoe loves Anacott Steel

Blue horseshoe loves Anacott Steel
...

 

[JA.Tri]

It is not about going beyond Lance and US Postal, at least regarding the USADA.

Given USADA's expressed and implied concern with UCI...USADA may be confining them selves to the above...however the UCI/HV/Pat are possible "collateral" (but NOT innocent) damage.

I am certainly hopeful!

 

[Race Radio]

I wonder how many dozen witnesses could be found against most of the pro peloton? This could establish a trend...not, only here, and only Armstrong. WADA does focus elsewhere as it should with proper testing, but this is mostly piggy backing off the GJ evidence. GJ's use to hand down an indictment or not. It this case, not. The evidence should stay sealed. I am really not sure when it became allowable to gift it to outside agencies.

I may be shooting in the dark, but has all the evidence seen full public disclosure? If this case relies on witnesses only, the evidence will someday be fully disclosed to the public as it should under the Freedom of Information Act I would hope. The troulble is, that it is usually the press that will file a complant under its first amendment rights in such a case. I really not sure the rules allow that for Amrstrong which is what I disagree with. His agreement with the USADA may not allow for it. The USADA has power and should investigate such cases, but I am only standing against a "trail by night" ruling where evidence is withheld and never seen by the public. It may stand for test results, but I am unconfortable with secret witnesses. Although this is not a court of law, it is another blow to indiviual rights if we are never see the evidence at hand. If it were out it the open as the ruling was annouced, I would not have a problem with it being used, but the GJ seal should be just that. Simple. One way or the other. To me sealed means sealed.
I know people want justice and it may be so here. Was this the path of BALCO?

Only my opinion and I not saying that evidence should ever be ignored. I am just confused on the legality of using GJ evidence here that may never be seen.

No GJ evidence was used

No, Very little of the evidence is public to limit intimidation of witnesses.

 

[TheInternet]

Not all evidence presented to a GJ falls under 6(e).
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm

"Rule 6(e) does not apply to material obtained or created independently of the grand jury as long as the disclosure of such material does not reveal what transpired before or at the direction of the grand jury."

And while GJ testimony is sealed, GJ witnesses are not prohibited from telling other agencies the information they revealed within the GJ.

 

[BotanyBay]

No GJ evidence was used

No, Very little of the evidence is public to limit intimidation of witnesses.

Yes, and now he can (and will) intimidate to his heart's content, as he has not been told who threw him under the bus.

 

[Fausto's Schnauzer]

Yes, and now he can (and will) intimidate to his heart's content, as he has not been told who threw him under the bus.

This bus? The one that was known to occasionally "break down" at the side of the road?

 

[Turner29]

Situation Critical!

LA's defence team will easily provide all/surfeit information, in compliance with implied suggestion from Sparks, J. They had simply chosen not to on the numerous previous occasions...because they thought Sparks, J would be entertained by their theatrics.

And USADA will struggle and ultimately fail to provide any substance to support their contentions...because they are egregious, incompetent, intemperate idiots...and there was never any case in the first place. Their argument of intimidation etc was simply a smokescreen to disguise the total lack of facts. And they hold Sparks, J in total contempt and will be charged accordingly.

Slightly sarcastic . In fact I believe the reverse is far more likely to occur.

Apparently, you have not read any first party documentation.