USADA - Armstrong

[snackattack]

so how is the frat-house dynasty of lawstrong haters doing ahead of the mythical jiffy that's not gonna happen ?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

so how is the frat-house dynasty of lawstrong haters doing ahead of the mythical jiffy that's not gonna happen ?

It certainly isn't the sorority of nonsensical cryptic completely deluded fanboys ahead of what is clearly an easy call based on actual precedent.

I guess you need to knock on the next door. I hear the passphrase is "I'm still looking for a woman like my mother."

 

[Velodude]

It certainly isn't the sorority of nonsensical cryptic completely deluded fanboys ahead of what is clearly an easy call based on actual precedent.

I guess you need to knock on the next door. I hear the passphrase is "I'm still looking for a woman like my mother."

.. and required to be maturer in years and legally blond

 

[mewmewmew13]

If you didn't see your star & mine Travis Tygart giving a great talk

Watch here (starts 1h05m ending 1h35m)
http://replays.robertsstream.com/racereplays/cust/tjc/tjc_rt_2012.php

As Dim said over at velorooms where he first posted this
there are one or two great veiled shots at Lance.
Travis Tygart looks a great guy and know how to make his points!

I haven't watched the entire thing yet, but I like Travis' style.
good link....

 

[snackattack]

I hear the passphrase is "I'm still looking for a woman like my mother."

othello or odysseus ?

 

[Velodude]

othello or odysseus ?

Oedipus Rex?

 

[snackattack]

Oedipus Rex?

 

[Velodude]

Snack? Your jaundiced interpretation?

 

[spetsa]

I don't think it is that easy. The precedent the USADA is relying on to exceed the statute of limitations is based on deceit during prior anti-doping proceedings. The precedent makes a lot of sense because an individual should not be able to benefit from sabotaging the proceedings. Otherwise everyone will see it as a valid strategy and the arbitration process would break down.

The USADA is going beyond that for Armstrong. They are attempting to use incidents outside the arbitration process. While Armstrong's actions may have the same corrupting effect on the anti-doping framework, it is a big leap to draw equivalence between lying in arbitration and acts that occurred when arbitrations was not even occurring.

This part of the USADA's case could easily be thrown out by CAS. If it is upheld then it could greatly expand the power of anti-doping agencies. Although Armstrong's actions were so brazen and outrageous that a new precedent might rarely be applicable to other athletes.

IIRC at the beginning of the Fed investigation, didn't LA claim that he had met with USAC after allegations came out of the positive samples and it was agreed that it was a witch hunt, and there was no truth to it? If this was true, he may be in a bind.

I don't have time right now, but will try to find it later tonight.

 

[QuickStepper]

The conspiracy to cover up the doping is necessary for extending the statute of limitations.

If he is found guilty of doping in 2009, 10, 11 or 12, then he will serve a 2 year ban which will prevent him from participating in Tri's.

If he is found guilty of doping in 2004 or 2005, which are within the SOL, then he will lose those titles and be a 5-6x TdF Champ*. Plus he will still serve the 2 year ban.

The conspiracy part is needed to go back to 1993-2003.

I don't think they will have any difficulty proving the conspiracy part, look at Zajicek's case, the bar is set pretty low on "conspiracy to cover up doping." As 49-14 said, if you so much as tell the testers that you haven't doped, you've basically committed a conspiracy to cover it up.

Here's the thing. I understand the Hellebruyck case and why the SOL was deemed to have been tolled during the period of time that Helle was alleged to have been committing fraud, but that specific conduct consisted of specific misrepresentations that were during the course of a doping arbitration. If I recall correctly, he admitted in an interview with a journalist during the course of the arbitration (but outside the hearing itself) that he had in fact been doping during the period prior to the SOL running. Based on that, USADA went back and reopened the case and charged him with doping during the period that would have otherwise been barred by the SOL.

That sort of exception to the SOL, i.e., where affirmative misrepresentations are made during the course of an arbitration or investigation are clearly a sound basis to reopen and allow prosecution during years that would have been otherwise barred by the SOL.

But in the case of someone like Armstrong, I think the conduct may be viewed differently. I know others here are latching onto the "conspiracy" element of the USADA's charging allegations, but here's the thing: Don't all doping cases involve an accused athlete who has "concealed" his or her doping use, some for an extended period of time?

In other words, if all that is required is the concealment of one's use of doping agents in order to deem that the SOL is tolled and to be ignored, then of what use really is the SOL? Don't the exceptions simply swallow up the rule? When, if ever, would the SOL be applicable to bar a prosecution by USADA?

I'm really not interested in hearing rhetoric or conclusory statements one way or the other regarding whether people think Armstrong did or didn't engage in a conspiracy. Rather, I'm interested in discussing the threshold as to when and under what circumstances the SOL is deemed to be inapplicable in connection with a prosecution initiated by USADA. If this isn't the thread for that discussion, and others suggest that it be taken to the "All Things Legal" thread, I'm happy to move this aspect of the discussion over there.

If anyone has any real insights into this, given that there is only a single reported decision (Hellebruyck) which involved extending the SOL, I'd love to hear what others have to say that might advance the discussion.

 

[QuickStepper]

I don't think it is that easy. The precedent the USADA is relying on to exceed the statute of limitations is based on deceit during prior anti-doping proceedings. The precedent makes a lot of sense because an individual should not be able to benefit from sabotaging the proceedings. Otherwise everyone will see it as a valid strategy and the arbitration process would break down.

The USADA is going beyond that for Armstrong. They are attempting to use incidents outside the arbitration process. While Armstrong's actions may have the same corrupting effect on the anti-doping framework, it is a big leap to draw equivalence between lying in arbitration and acts that occurred when arbitrations was not even occurring.

This part of the USADA's case could easily be thrown out by CAS. If it is upheld then it could greatly expand the power of anti-doping agencies. Although Armstrong's actions were so brazen and outrageous that a new precedent might rarely be applicable to other athletes.

Sorry, I guess I posted my question above before reading this response. Exactly so. Again, the mere presence of a failure to disclose one's use of doping (what many here have said is an indicia of "fraud" or "conspiracy") would seem to me to be present in every single case where an athlete fails to disclose and actively conceals his or her use of doping agents, and that being the case, of what use really would the SOL be if it could simply be waived and disregarded to allow a prosecution back beyond the reach of the SOL ever time? Again, the exception begins to swallow up the rule, and one has to ask, why even pretend to have a SOL if the exception to it is so broad as to render the SOL meaningless?

 

[QuickStepper]

Judge Sparks shot Armstrong down when he tried to file a late response to the motion to dismiss. This invitation to 'say anything more that you want to say' could be interpreted as a means to strip Armstrong of the argument that he wasn't allowed enough time to present his case. Now, Herman has no gripe on this front.

It indicates to me that the judge, as of last week, had not decided to rule in Armstrong's favor. If you're into reading tea leaves, it's a pro-USADA indicator.

The decision to allow both sides to file whatever they choose to file works both ways. But it's been my general experience that when a judge does this, i.e., allows additional time for further briefing, it's because he wants to eliminate any potential issue that might allow either party to claim on appeal that the judge committed reversible error by failing to allow either side the opportunity to present an argument that they would have otherwise presented at the trial court level but couldn't because the judge cut off their time to file briefing. By considering all the arguments and evidence, whatever it may be, the judge is at least giving the parties in the underlying case a "fair hearing".

 

[MarkvW]

Here's the thing. I understand the Hellebruyck case and why the SOL was deemed to have been tolled during the period of time that Helle was alleged to have been committing fraud, but that specific conduct consisted of specific misrepresentations that were during the course of a doping arbitration. If I recall correctly, he admitted in an interview with a journalist during the course of the arbitration (but outside the hearing itself) that he had in fact been doping during the period prior to the SOL running. Based on that, USADA went back and reopened the case and charged him with doping during the period that would have otherwise been barred by the SOL.

That sort of exception to the SOL, i.e., where affirmative misrepresentations are made during the course of an arbitration or investigation are clearly a sound basis to reopen and allow prosecution during years that would have been otherwise barred by the SOL.

But in the case of someone like Armstrong, I think the conduct may be viewed differently. I know others here are latching onto the "conspiracy" element of the USADA's charging allegations, but here's the thing: Don't all doping cases involve an accused athlete who has "concealed" his or her doping use, some for an extended period of time?

In other words, if all that is required is the concealment of one's use of doping agents in order to deem that the SOL is tolled and to be ignored, then of what use really is the SOL? Don't the exceptions simply swallow up the rule? When, if ever, would the SOL be applicable to bar a prosecution by USADA?

I'm really not interested in hearing rhetoric or conclusory statements one way or the other regarding whether people think Armstrong did or didn't engage in a conspiracy. Rather, I'm interested in discussing the threshold as to when and under what circumstances the SOL is deemed to be inapplicable in connection with a prosecution initiated by USADA. If this isn't the thread for that discussion, and others suggest that it be taken to the "All Things Legal" thread, I'm happy to move this aspect of the discussion over there.

If anyone has any real insights into this, given that there is only a single reported decision (Hellebruyck) which involved extending the SOL, I'd love to hear what others have to say that might advance the discussion.

If you look at licensing-antidoping-racing as a contract between the racer and his federation, then I can buy the fraudulent concealment tolling theory. A liar and a cheat shouldn't be able to claim the benefit of a contract when that benefit was obtained by fraud.

If you look at the WADA code as a limitation that WADA has placed upon itself, independent of any deal with the riders, then the issue takes on a much different cast. Then, it's more like a criminal case where a good lie maintained long enough gets you off the hook.

It is not an easy question. This might be a landmark antidoping case.

 

[python]

Quickstepper, was that you who several days back told the forum that only armstrong can appeal whilst usada, for some procedural reason can't ??

In case it was you, your explanation of judge sparks granting a delay to both sides is, to say the least, puzzling.

 

[MarkvW]

The decision to allow both sides to file whatever they choose to file works both ways. But it's been my general experience that when a judge does this, i.e., allows additional time for further briefing, it's because he wants to eliminate any potential issue that might allow either party to claim on appeal that the judge committed reversible error by failing to allow either side the opportunity to present an argument that they would have otherwise presented at the trial court level but couldn't because the judge cut off their time to file briefing. By considering all the arguments and evidence, whatever it may be, the judge is at least giving the parties in the underlying case a "fair hearing".

Sure it works both ways in theory. But in practice, in this case, USADA has no gripe that it was denied any opportunity for a fair hearing. Lance is the only one with a potential 'opportunity to be heard' gripe. And the judge is not going to invite more briefing if he has already decided that Lance wins. He's only going to invite more briefing if he is undecided or slanting toward USADA.

 

[MarkvW]

Quickstepper, was that you who several days back told the forum that only armstrong can appeal whilst usada, for some procedural reason can't ??

In case it was you, your explanation of judge sparks granting a delay to both sides is, to say the least, puzzling.

It's easy. You can only "appeal" a final decision. A dismissal kills the case. It's final. A denial of a motion to dismiss doesn't kill the case. It's not final because the case keeps ticking along.

There is a process for seeking review of nonfinal decisions, but you have to jump through extra hoops to get there. Basically, the judge below has to REALLY screw up (ultra-oversimplified).

 

[perfessor]

It is not an easy question. This might be a landmark antidoping case.

I realize you were being specific here, but that is probably the understatement of the thread ;-)

 

[Epicycle]

Sorry, I guess I posted my question above before reading this response. Exactly so. Again, the mere presence of a failure to disclose one's use of doping (what many here have said is an indicia of "fraud" or "conspiracy") would seem to me to be present in every single case where an athlete fails to disclose and actively conceals his or her use of doping agents, and that being the case, of what use really would the SOL be if it could simply be waived and disregarded to allow a prosecution back beyond the reach of the SOL ever time? Again, the exception begins to swallow up the rule, and one has to ask, why even pretend to have a SOL if the exception to it is so broad as to render the SOL meaningless?

The fact that USADA usually can't prove a specific act of concealment absent a confession may be an issue.

For example, in the Landis case the arbitration panels were satisfied that Floyd had evidence of exogenous testosterone in his system but they had no specific info as to how it got there. And with strict liability, the athlete is responsible for any detectable PED, whether he or she was aware of ingesting/being administered it or not. So there's still a nebulous area in most of these cases where any willing concealment may or may not have happened (and we all know many athletes claim it was accidental steak eating or supplement use or whatever that lead to the positive test result).

But when Floyd detailed his doping use, he got into specifics, including the surprising revelation that he bought a motorcycle just so he could use it to fool testers. Something like that could turn into a Hellebuyck type scenario. The difference in Lance's case is that USADA feel they can actually prove the specific fraud without Lance admitting anything. So it doesn't necessarily open up the can of worms you think it might.

 

[Microchip]

If you didn't see your star & mine Travis Tygart giving a great talk

Watch here (starts 1h05m ending 1h35m)
http://replays.robertsstream.com/racereplays/cust/tjc/tjc_rt_2012.php

As Dim said over at velorooms where he first posted this
there are one or two great veiled shots at Lance.
Travis Tygart looks a great guy and know how to make his points!

I don't see or hear anything...!

 

[mewmewmew13]

I don't see or hear anything...!

Do you see a title?
That shows for a bit until the vid shows up....

 

[Microchip]

Do you see a title?
That shows for a bit until the vid shows up....

Nothing...nada...nichts.

 

[python]

It's easy. You can only "appeal" a final decision

This was never an issue I brought up with quickstepper.
I hilighted his inconsistency with regard to explaining judge sparks 7 day delay.

 

[Race Radio]

There were multiple official investigations that Lance mislead

1999 positive for cortisone
2000 Dumping of syringes and Actovigen
2001 Positive for EPO
2005 retro testing of 1999 samples
2009 Showergate
2009 Transfusion kits

All were official. All included Armstrong misleading the investigation. SOL should not be a big challenge

 

[BroDeal]

There were multiple official investigations that Lance mislead

1999 positive for cortisone
2000 Dumping of syringes and Actovigen
2001 Positive for EPO
2005 retro testing of 1999 samples
2009 Showergate
2009 Transfusion kits

All were official. All included Armstrong misleading the investigation. SOL should not be a big challenge

How did he mislead them beyond the lies that any doper would have told? There was never any formal proceedings in those cases, the 1999 corticosteroid excepted.

It seems to me that the best argument for getting around the SOL is evidence that Armstrong took actions against others who would have revealed his doping if he had not done so. Man lies about doping on Larry King or even to an official of an anti-doping agency that is investigating, well, that is par for the course. It has to be expected. Otherwise we would simply ask people if they were doping or not. Man threatens potential witnesses, gets them fired from their jobs, pays people off, etc. That provides an argument that the doping would have been discovered within the SOL if those actions had not been taken. The athlete should not be able to benefit from corrupting the system.

 

[AussieGoddess]

There were multiple official investigations that Lance mislead

1999 positive for cortisone
2000 Dumping of syringes and Actovigen
2001 Positive for EPO
2005 retro testing of 1999 samples
2009 Showergate
2009 Transfusion kits

All were official. All included Armstrong misleading the investigation. SOL should not be a big challenge

As I understand it - there is a big difference between trying not to get caught, and lying/covering up an actual investigation or test.

If you are not tested, you hide your evidence well etc ... and the SOL passes, you are free.

If they DID test you, and you actively DID something (eg paid off someone to cover up a positive) where BUT for your fraudulent actions they would have found you positive .... then they can set aside the SOL.

In your cases above -

- the positive for cortisone isnt enough (IMO anyway). They came up with a story that made it acceptable. They didnt make it go away altogether.

- dumping of syringes and activogen ... I dont think thats enough either, though it depends a lot on the interviews and conversations after they were found. If they lied about the contents, or fraudulently made the whole thing go away they might be in trouble for that one.

- 2001 positive for EPO (TdS) this one is a no brainer. If they prove that, they have him.

- 2005 retro testing. Lance did not do anything to cover this up. They could not proceed due to not having B samples, not notifying him etc in relation to the protocol for testing for sanctions. All he did was spin it in the media ... and possibly in the SCA case, but that is not lying or fraudulently concealing evidence to an ADA

- 2009 showergate - I dont see an issue here either, unless they can prove that Lance paid the UCI/testers to look the other way or give him favourable treatment. Just for taking the extra time, taking a shower and attempting to conceal his doping isnt enough.

2009 transfusion kits - (not sure what this one is about), but again, concealing his DOPING isnt enough to set aside the SOL. He must be concealing or covering up an investigation that would otherwise find this out.