USADA - Armstrong

[ChewbaccaD]

You continue to presume that this is strictly a legal battle. I suggest otherwise. It's a legal battle providing cover for a PR battle that is far more important.

The idea that Judge Sparks would declare that USADA does not have jurisdiction to follow its own arbitration rules that Armstrong etal agreed to is a bit far-fetched, right?

I'm guessing the Armstrong representatives realize that as well. But that's not the entire point.

You misunderstand this if you think the battle is mostly a PR one. Lance is trying to gum up the works like any man with enough money (and a desire to hide the truth) would do. Any PR battle is still geared toward thwarting any proceeding in which the evidence compiled against him will be presented. And his attorneys are ****ing that up left and right. If they can't get this judge to stop it, they need to set up to get another to do so, and they have made some missteps in doing that also.

So, no, I don't think you can say that his attorneys are being the very model of proficiency and competence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So cycling news has it wrong then?

Is there any DNA evidence in the LA case? If so, let us all know.

Cyclingnews has it correct - you have it wrong, Valverde was never positive unless you think DNA is PED.
Check Leogrande, then come back to us.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Your opinion is noted.

However, the original point I was making was that Armstrong's compliant filed in court is regarding his 5th amendment rights. I was pointing that out because several posters were saying things like "USADA is following their rules and LA agreed to them therefore there is no due process violation".

As for this being one of those private matters not implicated by the Constitution I really can't say. I'm certainly not a legal expert but I'm assuming LA must have some sort of case or it would of been dismissed by now.

And you are assuming that he has those rights in this case, and that is nowhere in evidence that I have seen. In fact, the judge kicked out his first complaint because it didn't come near the standard of showing he had a federal issue (5th Amendment violation). And the judge has asked on two other occasions for his attorneys to prove jurisdiction (a federal issue, meaning an ACTUAL constitutional question), and they have yet to do so. They have made conclusory statements to that effect, but that and a 25 pennies will get you a quarter at a convenience store.

 

[BillytheKid]

Cyclingnews has it correct - you have it wrong, Valverde was never positive unless you think DNA is PED.
Check Leogrande, then come back to us.

The DNA linked him to a blood bag in Puerto which also was later positive for EPO, but the blood bag was enough.

The point is physical evidence vs. non-physical evidence. Biopass won't pass becasue it's subjective and shaky science on what is deem natural and unatural levels.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The DNA linked him to a blood bag in Puerto which also was later positive for EPO, but the blood bag was enough.

The point is physical evidence vs. non-physical evidence. Biopass won't pass becasue it's subjective and shaky science on what is deem natural and unatural levels.

Ok, so if that is your point - then read up Leogrande.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

A signed contract can always be challegned in court. What the merits are is a matter for the court to decide. Constitutional Rights are never given up by any contract. The question is most conctactual cases arises out of the many facets of the agreement and if they have been implemented according the agreement. A court may be ask to decided on the constitutionality of a contract.

And if the court rules that the provision of the contract that you are challenging is valid (which they do find in the GREAT majority of challenges to arbitration clauses), then you do not have the same constitutional protections provided by courts. Period.

What you don't seem to get is that Lance is making an argument that has been made by hundreds of thousands of people in relation to arbitration clauses, and the body of case law falls squarely on the side of arbitration clauses being valid. I would suggest doing a little more research before posting about this topic again.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverde-indignant-over-possible-suspension

says they used DNA evidence...Anything like that here?

Please tell me that you know the difference between using DNA evidence to link a person to a bag of blood and a positive for doping. You do understand what was at play there, right? Please tell me you didn't just post something as proof of what you claim that doesn't prove anything in relation to what you claim.

Actually, I am getting tired of your troll dance. Enjoy your cookies and tell your mom to keep it down upstairs, you're trying to concentrate.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The DNA linked him to a blood bag in Puerto which also was later positive for EPO, but the blood bag was enough.

The point is physical evidence vs. non-physical evidence. Biopass won't pass becasue it's subjective and shaky science on what is deem natural and unatural levels.

Okay, one more: Source?

 

[Irish2009]

[7]

Pietro Caucchioli received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport. [8] Antonio Colom tested positive for EPO in an out-of-competition control in April 2009, after having been targeted under the biological passport programme. He received a two-year sanction. [9]

Francesco De Bonis received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport. [10] Thomas Dekker tested positive for EPO in a retroactive test carried out on a urine sample taken in December 2007. Dekker's hematological profile led the UCI to review the EPO analyses for urine samples conducted since the introduction of the biological passport programme. [11]

Franco Pellizotti received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport. [8] Ricardo Serrano received a two-year sanction after being caught under the UCI's biological passport programme. Evidence against Serrano was based on an abnormal haematological profile and two laboratory reports indicating the detection of CERA in two of his blood samples. [12]

Tadej Valjavec received a two-year sanction as a result of abnormalities detected in his biological passport.

Billythekid, these are riders who were suspended on the basis of the biopassport, without testing positive. They signed up to the same rules as Armstrong, now Armstrong expects those rules not to apply to him, why shouldnt they?

 

[krinaman]

And you are assuming that he has those rights in this case, and that is nowhere in evidence that I have seen. In fact, the judge kicked out his first complaint because it didn't come near the standard of showing he had a federal issue (5th Amendment violation). And the judge has asked on two other occasions for his attorneys to prove jurisdiction (a federal issue, meaning an ACTUAL constitutional question), and they have yet to do so. They have made conclusory statements to that effect, but that and a 25 pennies will get you a quarter at a convenience store.

I'm assuming nothing. I'm was just pointing out that Lance is arguing his 5th amendment rights are being violated. I'm did so because the discussion seemed to be ignoring that fact.

The judge kicked the first complaint because it had to many pages of pointless stuff that seemed to be there for PR and not legal reasons. The amended filing included 5th amendment violations and is still being decided on.

The judge asking about jurisdiction has nothing to do the due process argument so I'm not sure why you are bringing that into this discussion.

 

[snackattack]

And you are assuming that he has those rights in this case ... In fact, the judge kicked out his first complaint because it didn't come near the standard of showing he had a federal.

One can not gamble away those rights period; also relating to the case itself.

Sparks just asked gently to refile and didn't rule on the merits of the case.

That gave Sparks also some air to do some consultation, take a closer look at the gag from USADA & Co. and what to do with it.

Well the result is obvious, Sparks starts to like this thing and knows exactly the timeline USADA & Co. are running.

CN said in their latest piece:

"Among the possible outcomes expected from Sparks in a week’s time"

That's is a bit optimistic to say the least.

 

[MarkvW]

I'm assuming nothing. I'm was just pointing out that Lance is arguing his 5th amendment rights are being violated. I'm did so because the discussion seemed to be ignoring that fact.

The judge kicked the first complaint because it had to many pages of pointless stuff that seemed to be there for PR and not legal reasons. The amended filing included 5th amendment violations and is still being decided on.

The judge asking about jurisdiction has nothing to do the due process argument so I'm not sure why you are bringing that into this discussion.

Lance's 5th Amendment argument is stupid.

(a) Nothing's happened to him yet.
(b) The US Government is not a party.
(c) USADA is not the US Government.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm assuming nothing. I'm was just pointing out that Lance is arguing his 5th amendment rights are being violated. I'm did so because the discussion seemed to be ignoring that fact.

The judge kicked the first complaint because it had to many pages of pointless stuff that seemed to be there for PR and not legal reasons. The amended filing included 5th amendment violations and is still being decided on.

The judge asking about jurisdiction has nothing to do the due process argument so I'm not sure why you are bringing that into this discussion.

Wrong. He clearly mentioned the Iqbal/Twombly standard for filings, and clearly stated that it was deficient in relation to that. Try again.

His asking about jurisdiction has EVERYTHING to do with the due process argument as federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and can only hear specific types of cases. One of those types is a federal question which relates to the court being able to hear a case because a valid constitutional issue is raised. Armstrong claims that his 5th Amendment rights are being violated, and thus has to prove this with more than the conclusory statements he made in his filings.

If you would like to know more about this, then ask questions instead of making statements that aren't correct.

 

[krinaman]

(c) USADA is not the US Government.

Actually one of the arguments being made is that the USADA is a "state actor". I.E. it works on behalf of the US government.

Whether that argument will fly in court I don't have the legal expertise to really say.

From SI

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...n/07/09/Lance-Armstrong-sues-USADA/index.html

In Armstrong's view, although USADA is nominally a nongovernmental entity, it operates as a state actor, meaning it acts on behalf of the government. If USADA is a state actor, it would be required to provide athletes with constitutional safeguards. Armstrong has a point that the quasi-criminal nature of USADA's proceedings may command greater due process. USADA is a creation of the federal government, receives funding from the federal government and regulates athletes on behalf of the federal government. As Armstrong detailed in his complaint, USADA also investigated him with cooperation from the Justice Department and FBI. Logically, if USADA sounds like the government, talks like the government and gets funding from the government, there is a good argument that it is the government.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...Armstrong-sues-USADA/index.html#ixzz23Md2s9cn

 

[ChewbaccaD]

One can not gamble away those rights period; also relating to the case itself.

Sparks just asked gently to refile and didn't rule on the merits of the case.

That gave Sparks also some air to do some consultation, take a closer look at the gag from USADA & Co. and what to do with it.

Well the result is obvious, Sparks starts to like this thing and knows exactly the timeline USADA & Co. are running.

CN said in their latest piece:

"Among the possible outcomes expected from Sparks in a week’s time"

That's is a bit optimistic to say the least.

You don't gamble away anything if they don't exist in the first place in a private action. /DISCUSSION

Study the court cases surrounding arbitration before posting again. Please. These rights you refer to are not the same for private agreements governed by arbitration clauses. The court has made this clear on many occasions.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Actually one of the arguments being made is that the USADA is a "state actor". I.E. it works on behalf of the US government.

Whether that argument will fly in court I don't have the legal expertise to really say.

From SI

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...n/07/09/Lance-Armstrong-sues-USADA/index.html

Funny, they seem to have abandoned that argument in their reply to the motion to dismiss...hmmm...strange days indeed.

 

[snackattack]

These rights you refer to are not the same for private agreements governed by arbitration clauses. The court has made this clear on many occasions.

Yeah, but not if they end up oversees tossed around like its some ET in a pseudo candy-court without the funny stuff.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Actually one of the arguments being made is that the USADA is a "state actor". I.E. it works on behalf of the US government.

Whether that argument will fly in court I don't have the legal expertise to really say.

From SI

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...n/07/09/Lance-Armstrong-sues-USADA/index.html

Okay, sarcasm aside, you seem to be in the ballgame in relation to these issues, but you honestly are missing some very key things. Quite frankly, before I took Civil Procedure, I would have been just as mystified. The information you are seeking is in this thread, though admittedly it is hard to wade through to find. But I assure you that making arguments and having a court find those arguments valid is a long haul. Here, there is plenty of case law supporting the arbitration agreement as a valid method of settling the matter at hand, and because of that, courts are limited by SCOTUS in entertaining cases that fall within the realm of a valid arbitration agreement. If you want a primer on the cases that relate directly to that, I would suggest reading this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/102387437/USADA-Reply-for-Dismissal It details the standard case law surrounding the issue. If you want to compare that to the helter skelter, precedent devoid answers produced by Armstrong's camp, and the solidity of the case law in comparison, please do. It really isn't even close.

Of course, none of that is to say that the Judge Sparks will not rule in favor or Armstrong. You can never be certain, but based on prior rulings and the fact that there is nothing unique here when it comes to challenges to arbitration clauses IMO, the judge should rule against Armstrong. That is where I would lay my money, but I wouldn't put my entire fortune on it. Armstrong has a lot of money, and people like that many times find ways to subvert justice.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yeah, but not if they end up oversees tossed around like its some ET in a pseudo candy-court without the funny stuff.

 

[Velodude]

BillytheKid:

You came to this forum claiming to be an investigative journalist as a smokescreen for your adulation of wonderboy.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=565375&postcount=3692

I worked almost 20 years as a journalist ....One of the reasons I left the trade is that too many, but not all, reporters and some editors where approuching stories as already written and seeking quotes and events that already fit their narrative. Journalist do poke around.

I now suspect you are really a journalist after reading McQuaid's recent letters.

It appears to be your DNA all over that content. Did Pat engage you as his ghostwriter?

 

[krinaman]

Wrong. He clearly mentioned the Iqbal/Twombly standard for filings, and clearly stated that it was deficient in relation to that. Try again.

It was deficient in relation to Iqbal/Twombly standard because it wasn't short and plain (which is what I just said).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/sports/lance-armstrong-files-suit-to-block-doping-charges.html

Sam Sparks, of United States District Court, chastised Armstrong’s lawyers for submitting a lengthy complaint filled with allegations that “were totally irrelevant to Armstrong’s claims.”

Sparks said in his order that the court was left to presume that the allegations “were included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against” the antidoping agency and Travis Tygart, the agency’s chief executive, who is also named as a defendant.

“This court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong’s desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through 80 mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims,” Sparks said.

The judge added that Armstrong could refile his case within 20 days, but only if he limited his pleadings to information that was legally relevant to his case.

And

Judge Sparks dismissed without prejudice Armstrong's complaint and motion for temporary restraining order for failure to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Citing Iqbal and Twombly, Judge Sparks found that Armstrong's complaint was neither short nor plain and, therefore, ran afoul of basic federal pleading standards. According to Judge Sparks, the bulk of the complaint's 261 numbered paragraphs were "wholly irrelevant to Armstrong's claims" and "included solely to increase media coverage of this case, and to incite public opinion against Defendants."

Judge Sparks continued,

[A]lthough his causes of action are, thankfully, clearly enumerated, the excessive preceding rhetoric makes it difficult to relate them to any particular factual support. This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of a few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims.

http://70.32.75.31/news-details/judge-sparks-dismisses-armstrong-complaint

And for the heck of it here's the judges order:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20120709armstrongsuit/Armstrong_order.pdf

So I'm not sure what is incorrect about my statement.

 

[krinaman]

Funny, they seem to have abandoned that argument in their reply to the motion to dismiss...hmmm...strange days indeed.

Again, I'm no legal expert but since the motion to dismiss didn't address that issue why would they include it in the reply?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

It was deficient in relation to Iqbal/Twombly standard because it wasn't short and plain (which is what I just said).

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/10/sports/lance-armstrong-files-suit-to-block-doping-charges.html



And




http://70.32.75.31/news-details/judge-sparks-dismisses-armstrong-complaint

And for the heck of it here's the judges order:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/sports/20120709armstrongsuit/Armstrong_order.pdf

So I'm not sure what is incorrect about my statement.

I will tell you: First, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a short plain statement. The Iqbal/Twombly standard relates to the content of that short plain statement, and the requirement that the statement be more than a conclusory statement of law. Go read both of those cases and you will see that they are not about length of statement, but they are about the content of the statement, and the move from notice pleading (meaning simply making a statement that there was a violation) and a heightened pleading standard that requires something more than just saying you have a claim.

I studied both cases in excruciating detail, but let me quote his ruling since you posted it

"The Supreme Court has recently held that "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Rule 8 prescribes a middle ground of specificity, not requiring " detailed factual allegations," but demanding "more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555)."

AND

Ultimately, what Rule 8 demands is a short and plain statement of detailed facts, not a mechanical recital of boilerplate allegations, nor as is more relevant here a lengthy and bitter polemic against the named defendants.

He is PRECISELY referring to the fact that Armstrong's original complaint did not contain anything BUT and "unadorned, the defendant unlawfully harmed me accusation." That quote he made has NOTHING to do with "short and plain" and EVERYTHING to do with a motion that was deficient in content.

If you are going to post things, read them first.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Again, I'm no legal expert but since the motion to dismiss didn't address that issue why would they include it in the reply?

Because it's part of their original argument that the arbitration agreement shouldn't apply and a forum that ensures constitutional due process protections should apply. You'd have to ask Armstrong's attorneys why they dropped that line of reasoning and went for the "The UCI controls here and it is their arbitration process that we submitted to" line of reasoning. I am guessing they did it because the "state actor" argument has also been sufficiently adjudicated that they started barking up another tree out of a need to make some kind of argument.

 

[krinaman]

Okay, sarcasm aside, you seem to be in the ballgame in relation to these issues, but you honestly are missing some very key things.

Again, I am certainly not claiming to be a legal expert.

It just seemed to me that alot of the discussion in this thread was missing the actual facts of the case. I'm just trying to point out those facts so they get included in the discussion.

IDK, it just seemed to me that actually discussing the facts made for better discussion than just declaring that Armstrong has no case because people believe he doped. I believe he doped too but obviously there must be some merit to his case or it would of been dismissed by now.