USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

I know, I know... went looking for it a while back and couldn't find it.

Would love to get the link again. It is hilarious, especially when you know the outcome.

Dave.

The look on his face was priceless. He couldn’t actually believe he was being tested or that he wasn’t allowed to be given time to “prepare” himself to be tested.

 

[He-manuelle Sella]

I know, I know... went looking for it a while back and couldn't find it.

Would love to get the link again. It is hilarious, especially when you know the outcome.

Dave.

Here you go Dave!

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v15923572sDJHhCMJ

 

[GreasyMonkey]

I know, I know... went looking for it a while back and couldn't find it.

Would love to get the link again. It is hilarious, especially when you know the outcome.

Dave.

Here it is...

http://history.cycleto.com/index.ph...beltran-bust&catid=9:race-video&Itemid=200002

 

[D-Queued]

Here you go Dave!

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v15923572sDJHhCMJ

Here it is...

http://history.cycleto.com/index.ph...beltran-bust&catid=9:race-video&Itemid=200002

Thanks Guys!

It is now in my Lance folder... just because.

Dave.

 

[Microchip]

I can't forget Triki Beltran going off road in an attempt to sneak away from doping control when the AFLD took over the Tour testing in 2008, when he rode for Liquigas. He literally tried to ride through a field when he found out he had to give a sample immediately after the end of the stage. It was comical. The obvious implication was that Triki thought, "woah, this is not how the UCI does it". Of course he tested positive for EPO.

This is hilarious!!!

 

[will10]

Here you go Dave!

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v15923572sDJHhCMJ

Much appreciated.

 

[Freddythefrog]

Then worrying thing is that uninformed listeners will think that this guy is an objective professional in the best possible position to know if Lance was doping, rather than a paid liar who was part of the conspiracy and is trying to cover his tracks.

Excellent point.

Yes, as a Brit we know the way the public view this sort of topic when presented by the BBC, that is exactly what will play through the majority of listeners minds. They expect the BBC to put up a "counter" if the source is biased, to balance it out, OR the interviewer is fully briefed to ask the right questions tough style. If neither of these go on the assumption is that statement is fact. This is exactly what is wrong with the institutionalised take on a lot of sports reporting here, there is no analysis. The quality of journalism leaves a great deal to be desired. In a similar way rowing and track cycling are presented as World sporting events. It has taken the Sky publicity juggernaut to invent road cycling and present it as something else.

 

[Benotti69]

Excellent point.

Yes, as a Brit we know the way the public view this sort of topic when presented by the BBC, that is exactly what will play through the majority of listeners minds. They expect the BBC to put up a "counter" if the source is biased, to balance it out, OR the interviewer is fully briefed to ask the right questions tough style. If neither of these go on the assumption is that statement is fact. This is exactly what is wrong with the institutionalised take on a lot of sports reporting here, there is no analysis. The quality of journalism leaves a great deal to be desired. In a similar way rowing and track cycling are presented as World sporting events. It has taken the Sky publicity juggernaut to invent road cycling and present it as something else.

Yep, shame on the beeb for this. But they are jumping on the band wagon of 'feel good factor' of the olympics. Why didn't they get Walsh or Kimmage to discuss the other side? BBC no longer represents an neutral standpoint and hasn't for a long time.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Excellent point.

Yes, as a Brit we know the way the public view this sort of topic when presented by the BBC, that is exactly what will play through the majority of listeners minds. They expect the BBC to put up a "counter" if the source is biased, to balance it out, OR the interviewer is fully briefed to ask the right questions tough style. If neither of these go on the assumption is that statement is fact. This is exactly what is wrong with the institutionalised take on a lot of sports reporting here, there is no analysis. The quality of journalism leaves a great deal to be desired. In a similar way rowing and track cycling are presented as World sporting events. It has taken the Sky publicity juggernaut to invent road cycling and present it as something else.

To be fair to the BBC, I suppose they would expect the head of Anti-doping of the TdF to be actually interested in anti-doping and knowledgeable.

Unfortunately the Beeb appear to have Bruins number and use him discuss 'anti-doping" - here he rambling on about clenbuterol, apparently it makes you much bigger.

 

[dbrower]

Only the arbitration decision is made public. Detailed testimony is not.

True, all the testimony and evidence is released, but there is usually enough of substance in the award to get the important information. Just the award would be enough, I think.

-dB

 

[Freddythefrog]

You just cannot make it up !

To be fair to the BBC, I suppose they would expect the head of Anti-doping of the TdF to be actually interested in anti-doping and knowledgeable.

Unfortunately the Beeb appear to have Bruins number and use him discuss 'anti-doping" - here he rambling on about clenbuterol, apparently it makes you much bigger.

They are twice as big ! The cyclists, when you see them on TV, are massive !

What TV has Bruin been looking at ?

 

[mewmewmew13]

They are twice as big ! The cyclists, when you see them on TV, are massive !

What TV has Bruin been looking at ?

BIG screen obviously

 

[Velodude]

BIG screen obviously

With a screwed up aspect ratio needing adjustment

 

[BroDeal]

With a screwed up aspect ratio needing adjustment

4:3 stretched to 16:9.

 

[TubularBills]

This is hilarious!!!

For the image archive:

 

[mewmewmew13]

We've got a ton of stickies in the Clinic but do we have an image archive?

 

[QuickStepper]

I believe that is a reference to where the court of appeals is. I'll let one of the lawyers here verify/correct.

Alpe is correct, Armstrong could, if he lost before Judge Sparks (i.e., if the USADA's motion to dismiss gets granted), file an appeal with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is located in New Orleans. That is not starting the "process again in Louisiana" but is a continuation of the same process and the issue on appeal would be whether the trial court (Judge Sparks) erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in dismissing the underlying case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (I mention both error of law and abuse of discretion because in this instance, I'm not exactly sure of the actual scope and standard of review on appeal in this instance....I could find out easily, but am not inclined to research it at the moment because it's just premature).

As for starting over, each side is only going to get one bite at this apple: Armstrong cannot, if there is an adverse decision in this case, refile the same complaint again in this or any other federal court (or in any state court for that matter). He would be precluded from doing so by reason of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Those doctrines prevent a party (or that party's privies) from re-litigatinng any issue that has been conclusively determined in a prior lawsuit (res judicata) and the doctrines also prevent a party from "splitting" a cause of action, i.e., submitting some issues based on the same set of facts or circumstances in one tribunal, and then later attempting to sue on other issues also arising from the same set of general facts which were withheld but not actually litigated in the first suit, but which could have been asserted in the first case (collateral estoppel).

Simply stated, if the case is litigated to a judgment on the merits (and a dismissal based on a finding that the court lacks jurisdiction is I believe in this instance, considered to be a determination on the merits), the parties are not premitted to relitigate the same claims again (or for that matter, any other claims that could have been litigated in the first case.

Were the law otherwise, there would never be an end to litigation, and parties could continually refile as long as the lawyers could dream up new claims based on the same set of operative facts.

 

[D-Queued]

Alpe is correct, Armstrong could, if he lost before Judge Sparks (i.e., if the USADA's motion to dismiss gets granted), file an appeal with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is located in New Orleans. that is not starting the "process again in Louisiana" but is a continuation of the same process and the issue on appeal would be whether the trial court (Judge Sparks) erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in dismissing the underlying case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

As for starting over, each side is only going to get one bite at this apple: Armstrong cannot, if there is an adverse decision in this case, refile the same complaint again in this or any other federal court (or in any state court for that matter). He would be precluded from doing so by reason of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Those doctrines prevent a party (or that party's privies) from re-litigatinng any issue that has been conclusively determined in a prior lawsuit (res judicata) and the doctrines also prevent a party from "splitting" a cause of action, i.e., submitting some issues based on the same set of facts or circumstances in one tribunal, and then later attempting to sue on other issues also arising from the same set of general facts which were withheld but not actually litigated in the first suit, but which could have been asserted in the first case (collateral estoppel).

Simply stated, if the case is litigated to a judgment on the merits (and a dismissal based on a finding that the court lacks jurisdiction is I believe in this instance, considered to be a determination on the merits), the parties are not premitted to relitigate the same claims again (or for that matter, any other claims that could have been litigated in the first case.

Were the law otherwise, there would never be an end to litigation, and parties could continually refile as long as the lawyers could dream up new claims based on the same set of operative facts.

Thanks.

On the subject of an appeal, even if likely unwinable, doesn't filing an appeal seem like the next logical strategy in the delay tactics?

How long would it likely take New Orleans to rule the appeal has no grounds?

Following that, there should be one more option to appeal - no?

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Thanks.

On the subject of an appeal, even if likely unwinable, doesn't filing an appeal seem like the next logical strategy in the delay tactics?

How long would it likely take New Orleans to rule the appeal has no grounds?

Following that, there should be one more option to appeal - no?

Dave.

Appeal is may happen for face-saving/PR and maybe because Armstrong really believes in his case.

But to delay, Armstrong needs a stay. Sparks, if he dismisses, isn't going to stay anything. It would be up to the 5th Circuit, and Armstrong would have a very hard sell on his hands.

 

[Race Radio]

Appeal is may happen for face-saving/PR and maybe because Armstrong really believes in his case.

But to delay, Armstrong needs a stay. Sparks, if he dismisses, isn't going to stay anything. It would be up to the 5th Circuit, and Armstrong would have a very hard sell on his hands.

He doesn't. He knows he is going to lose.

I can image that he might try it as a delay tactic. An attempt to get Johan and Pepe into arbitration to see the evidence but that will not work either

 

[Oldman]

So now Melky Cabrera, MVP of the MLB All Star game is popped for testosterone and suspended for 50 games by MLB. This isn't some latent crap from a Senate hearing; this is the best player on a team in contention for their division lead.
If MLB is willing to do this with the reputation most hold about American sports in mind: does it politically add impetus to allow USADA to follow through with their findings? Does Judge Sparks have any more latitude to let the facts get shown?
I think so. Melky Cabrera is a big time, current athlete that's paid in numbers Armstrong lusted after. And, while that may be unrelated to the USADA case; the public is going to start avoiding the ballpark. Money talks quietly at first.

 

[Oldman]

This, on Cabrera's earning possibilites (now on hold)

Given that Cabrera is only 27 years old right now, a five-year contract extension would only take him through his age 32 season. With his combination of speed, power, range, arm strength, youth and contact ability, a five-year contract makes a lot of sense.

When you factor in Cabrera's inconsistent track record, inability to play center field, lack of home run power and that his outstanding 2012 campaign is heavily influenced by some luck on balls in play, his earning power is reduced a bit. Most players tend to lose some value as they get deeper into their contracts as well.

Jason O. Watson/Getty Images

Considering all of that, Cabrera should probably be worth $12-16 million per season. That makes a five-year contract worth between $60-80 million a very good estimate for what Cabrera should get on the open market.

 

[MarkvW]

He doesn't. He knows he is going to lose.

I can image that he might try it as a delay tactic. An attempt to get Johan and Pepe into arbitration to see the evidence but that will not work either

You should never underestimate the ability of a litigant to delude himself.

 

[BroDeal]

You should never underestimate the ability of a litigant to delude himself.

I don't think we should underestimate the ability of the U.S. system to find in favor of a wealthy, connected man who has become an icon for American exceptionalists.

If you keep throwing Hail Marys then there is a good chance that eventually one will be caught.

 

[BYOP88]

This, on Cabrera's earning possibilites (now on hold)

Given that Cabrera is only 27 years old right now, a five-year contract extension would only take him through his age 32 season. With his combination of speed, power, range, arm strength, youth and contact ability, a five-year contract makes a lot of sense.

When you factor in Cabrera's inconsistent track record, inability to play center field, lack of home run power and that his outstanding 2012 campaign is heavily influenced by some luck on balls in play, his earning power is reduced a bit. Most players tend to lose some value as they get deeper into their contracts as well.

Jason O. Watson/Getty Images

Considering all of that, Cabrera should probably be worth $12-16 million per season. That makes a five-year contract worth between $60-80 million a very good estimate for what Cabrera should get on the open market.

The Melkman may have been able to get more $$$$ per year than the 12-16 that was mentioned. In the 2010 offseason Jayson Werth and Carl Crawford both signed 7 year deals worth $122 and $136 million respectively and both were older than Cabrera will be at the end of the season. But as you probably know it also depends who else is up for free agency too, also helps if Scott Boras is your agent too.