USADA - Armstrong

[mewmewmew13]

Judge Sparks has a pretty good idea what is going on - from his comments last week:

Quote:
"There's something under the current when UCI says `This is our case, USADA step back,' and USADA says `Not on your life,'" Sparks said.

I missed this entirely!
Thanks

quite amazing there really.....and there should be no underestimating sparks' intelligence.

 

[MarkvW]

I don't read the letter from US Cycling (Stephen Hess) to USADA (William Bock), dated 17 August, 2012, as being all that supportive to either the UCI or Lance Armstrong.

In the paragraph where US Cycling appears to be telling USADA to back off, the issue is characterized as "that esoteric legal issue". When I read that, it suggests to me that what follows is being stated because Mr. Hess has to state this, but he doesn't have his heart into it.

In the next paragraph, Mr. Hess goes on to state his understanding that the USADA is asserting its jurisdiction can be anchored outside to the UCI's rules, and that US Cycling has no problems with that.

I agree, but sooner or later Pat Heinie is going to make USAC either support or repudiate the "stop order" that the UCI issued to USADA. That is when things become preeminently real, from my POV.

 

[QuickStepper]

I don't read the letter from US Cycling (Stephen Hess) to USADA (William Bock), dated 17 August, 2012, as being all that supportive to either the UCI or Lance Armstrong.

In the paragraph where US Cycling appears to be telling USADA to back off, the issue is characterized as "that esoteric legal issue". When I read that, it suggests to me that what follows is being stated because Mr. Hess has to state this, but he doesn't have his heart into it.

In the next paragraph, Mr. Hess goes on to state his understanding that the USADA is asserting its jurisdiction can be anchored outside to the UCI's rules, and that US Cycling has no problems with that.

I tend to agree with some of what you've referred to, and after re-reading Hess' letter, think it's perhaps more equivocal than I first thought upon my initial reading. The last paragraph, as you note, is much more open to equivocation. In that last paragraph, Hess writes as follows:

"I understand USADA's assertion its jurisdiction can be anchored outside UCI's rules and the importation of those rules into USAC's governance. USAC does not intend the comments above to apply outside the scope of UCI's governance of doping as allocated by the WADA Code. USAC understands that several of the targets USADA has identified are not USA Cycling license holders, are outside USA Cycling's control, and it is not USAC's role to argue jurisdictional issues involving such parties. In addition, USAC understands that there are substantial disagreements concerning whether USADA's charges involve test results over which UCI has jurisdiction, or involve violations that were discovered by USADA. USAC does not intend to express any opinion on thos arguments as USAC is not privy to any of the information on which a reasonable determination could be made, nor do any of the applicable rules even give USAC a role in adjudicating the jurisdictional issues at hand."

The last two sentences above seem to suggest that despite the seeming support for UCI's and Armstrong's position in the third paragraph at page 1 of Hess' letter (which relates to international cycling doping controls), UCAC is just not going to get behind UCI or USADA, one way or the other, when it comes to non-analytical enforcement proceedings. Indeed, the statement that USAC has no "role in adjudicating" the jurisdictional issue, while pretty much self-evident, also would seem to support USADA's position more so than it does Armstrong's in the final analysis.

Again, this is going to be a very interesting decision by Judge Sparks, no matter how it turns out.

 

[Race Radio]

I know that this is going to be considered as "swimming against the tide" but having read, and re-read both side's briefs, I don't think anyone is feeding the judge a load of crap, nor do I think Armstrong's side doesn't believe the material that its submitted to the court has merit, any more than USADA doesn't fervently believe in the merit of its position. This is a difficult case, made all the more difficult because of the infighting and jockeying for position that has occurred between the various outside parties (e.g., WADA, UCI, USAC). As someone else noted, the only party not yet heard from is the IOC, and I have no idea what they could add to this mix that would clarify it, or muck it up further.

IMHO, if the decision about whether the court does or doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction was so easy, it would have been decided last week and without the need for any additional briefing (notwithstanding the fact that Judge Sparks might also want to appear to be as fair as possible by allowing everyone to submit whatever else they wish). Someone else noted that this is going to be a landmark case and there's no doubt about that in my mind.

Judge already said that Armstrong's side fed him a load of crap with their 1st filing

 

[python]

Quote:
"There's something under the current when UCI says `This is our case, USADA step back,' and USADA says `Not on your life,'" Sparks said.

I missed this entirely!
Thanks

i am away from my files, but the statement by the judge went something like this, 'i am not a fisherman but i can smell a rotten/bad smelling fish [the rest is as the doc quoted]...

this is exactly one of the drawbacks of lacking a public transcript from the court room. Various media depending on their editorial position quote what fits that position.

that very phrase is the very evidence the judge understands he is dealing with the attempted case of covering up a doping positive and a cash bribe.

hardly a position to be cute about as the judge sometimes likes to be.

 

[BroDeal]

Does anyone else have a sinking feeling about this?

That latest McQuaid letter is so depressing to read. If this case ends up being thrown out then there is no hope for this sport.

That would be me. Sink, sinking, sunk.

That the UCI can be so openly brazen about attempting to protect a doper says there is no hope as long as the UCI has anything to do with anti-doping. Whatever JV may attempt with his own team amounts to nothing more than creating a small refuge within a completely corrupt landscape.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Thanks, Dave.

Anyone know when the Sparks ruling will come down? I'm on pins and needles here...

We all are ....

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

That would be me. Sink, sinking, sunk.

That the UCI can be so openly brazen about attempting to protect a doper says there is no hope as long as the UCI has anything to do with anti-doping. Whatever JV may attempt with his own team amounts to nothing more than creating a small refuge within a completely corrupt landscape.

I don't think any of those letters change or add anything. Rehash of the same verbal sewage. The issue has already been distilled for Sparks. The crazy McQuaid letters don't convey innocence, rather they eliminate it. And through association, also for everyone else. Hopefully we prevail as I said earlier, granting the motion in favoer of LA makes Sparks part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[Jeremiah]

I know that this is going to be considered as "swimming against the tide" but having read, and re-read both side's briefs, I don't think anyone is feeding the judge a load of crap, nor do I think Armstrong's side doesn't believe the material that its submitted to the court has merit, any more than USADA doesn't fervently believe in the merit of its position. This is a difficult case, made all the more difficult because of the infighting and jockeying for position that has occurred between the various outside parties (e.g., WADA, UCI, USAC). As someone else noted, the only party not yet heard from is the IOC, and I have no idea what they could add to this mix that would clarify it, or muck it up further.

IMHO, if the decision about whether the court does or doesn't have subject matter jurisdiction was so easy, it would have been decided last week and without the need for any additional briefing (notwithstanding the fact that Judge Sparks might also want to appear to be as fair as possible by allowing everyone to submit whatever else they wish). Someone else noted that this is going to be a landmark case and there's no doubt about that in my mind.

As Race Radio already pointed out, the judge said the initial filing was a load of crap.

It's only a difficult case for those that have an emotional involvement.

If you forget the name involved it's not a landmark case. Precedent and the rules are on the side of USADA.

Until recently, Armstrong himself was on the side of USADA.

Stapleton/Armstrong was basically a part of USADA.

Uncloud the issue in your mind.

 

[eyemgh]

Pins and Needles...

We all are ....

I'm clickin' the **** out of the refresh button.

M

 

[Epicycle]

That would be me. Sink, sinking, sunk.

That the UCI can be so openly brazen about attempting to protect a doper says there is no hope as long as the UCI has anything to do with anti-doping.

And for anyone who still might think this whole Lance business is unnecessarily digging up the past ...remember what Bro wrote while thinking of Pat beaming about Wiggins winning the Tour in the year London hosted the Olympics.

As Pat said himself, "it's all coming together (for cycling) at just the right time". He thought a Cav/Wiggins double, "would be great ... because it's another edition to this fairy-tale story".

Add that to Pat's racism...remember when he called the Anglo-Saxon culture morally superior to the "mafia-like culture of western Europe"...and this all gets really disgusting.

 

[Jeremiah]

That would be me. Sink, sinking, sunk.

That the UCI can be so openly brazen about attempting to protect a doper says there is no hope as long as the UCI has anything to do with anti-doping. Whatever JV may attempt with his own team amounts to nothing more than creating a small refuge within a completely corrupt landscape.

**Edited***
I don't see someone getting to Sparks but if he needs his job to pay his mortgage, who knows what can happen??

 

[eyemgh]

***

Even though I might concur, this is way off topic and a huge risk of derailing the whole thread into a political flame war. Back to cycling.

M

 

[D-Queued]

Does anyone else have a sinking feeling about this?

That latest McQuaid letter is so depressing to read. If this case ends up being thrown out then there is no hope for this sport.

I hear you, but ultimately it is up to us.

Whatever the final result, if the cycling community does not scream for change it will not happen.

Even under what might be their doomsday scenario, the UCI will likely only be partially tarnished.

I am preparing to scream. There is a lot of material to scream about, and more is coming.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

And for anyone who still might think this whole Lance business is unnecessarily digging up the past ...remember what Bro wrote while thinking of Pat beaming about Wiggins winning the Tour in the year London hosted the Olympics.

As Pat said himself, "it's all coming together (for cycling) at just the right time". He thought a Cav/Wiggins double, "would be great ... because it's another edition to this fairy-tale story".

Add that to Pat's racism...remember when he called the Anglo-Saxon culture morally superior to the "mafia-like culture of western Europe"...and this all gets really disgusting.

An Irishman grooving on Anglo-Saxon culture? Sure is a funny world.

 

[MarkvW]

I hear you, but ultimately it is up to us.

Whatever the final result, if the cycling community does not scream for change it will not happen.

Even under what might be their doomsday scenario, the UCI will likely only be partially tarnished.

I am preparing to scream. There is a lot of material to scream about, and more is coming.

Dave.

It's all about the sponsors, Dave. Convince the sponsors today and the sport changes tomorrow.

 

[BotanyBay]

***
I don't see someone getting to Sparks but if he needs his job to pay his mortgage, who knows what can happen??

Corruption exists the moment you get more than 3 members of any organization. It's in our nature.

 

[Page Mill Masochist]

***
I don't see someone getting to Sparks but if he needs his job to pay his mortgage, who knows what can happen??

Armstrong's political cronies are largely on the other side: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Judge Birotte, Mark Fabiani ...

 

[Velodude]

I hear you, but ultimately it is up to us.

Whatever the final result, if the cycling community does not scream for change it will not happen.

Even under what might be their doomsday scenario, the UCI will likely only be partially tarnished.

I am preparing to scream. There is a lot of material to scream about, and more is coming.

Dave.

Being excluded by the IOC is a huge threat to the financial viability for the UCI.

One of the largest cash flows to the UCI is passive. Its a payment over 4 years between Olympics to international sporting federations of a share of the Olympics take.

Last report (2009) I read was UCI was receiving 3.5m Swiss francs per annum from the 2008 Beijing OG.

I would say the IOC would be working in the backrooms with the veil of this threat for UCI to clean up its act by ensuring a number of "voluntary" resignations are arranged or else.

 

[QuickStepper]

As Race Radio already pointed out, the judge said the initial filing was a load of crap.

It's only a difficult case for those that have an emotional involvement.

If you forget the name involved it's not a landmark case. Precedent and the rules are on the side of USADA.

Until recently, Armstrong himself was on the side of USADA.

Stapleton/Armstrong was basically a part of USADA.

Uncloud the issue in your mind.

No one can dispute that Judge Sparks dismissed the initial complaint filed by Armstrong.

But anyone who understands the law of pleadings would know that the original complaint is at this point legally non-existent and utterly irrelevant to anything Judge Sparks is going to rule on. It has been superceded completely by the amended complaint.

If you were to "uncloud the issue in your mind" you'd realize this, and you'd also understand the gravity of the issues that are before this judge. Roll your eyes all you want, but this isn't going to be an easy decision for this judge.

 

[mewmewmew13]

No one can dispute that Judge Sparks dismissed the initial complaint filed by Armstrong.

But anyone who understands the law of pleadings would know that the original complaint is at this point legally non-existent and utterly irrelevant to anything Judge Sparks is going to rule on. It has been superceded completely by the amended complaint.

If you were to "uncloud the issue in your mind" you'd realize this, and you'd also understand the gravity of the issues that are before this judge. Roll your eyes all you want, but this isn't going to be an easy decision for this judge.

He can still call it bs...which he did.

 

[QuickStepper]

He can still call it bs...which he did.

He can call it whatever he wants....late for dinner, on the phone, BS.....it's irrelevant.

The judge's original dismissal order of the original complaint was what it was, but it has absolutely no relevance with regard to whether the amended complaint has or has not properly invoked the court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Just doing what was suggested, i.e., taking all of the emotion out of it, and looking at what is left for this court to decide.

 

[BroDeal]

I would say the IOC would be working in the backrooms with the veil of this threat for UCI to clean up its act by ensuring a number of "voluntary" resignations are arranged or else.

That is what they should be doing. People in USOC and WADA should be on the phone with Rogge. The big question is what are they doing. I would guess probably not much, otherwise the UCI would not have filed anything. The IOC is just as corrupt as the UCI.

The UCI is part of the IOC system, which a system designed to provide cushy jobs for the inner Olympic family. The money the system brings in from media contracts is secondary to the money that flows into athlete development from governments. Everyone from the top to the bottom gets a piece of the action. The IOC is not corrupt because it has corrupt people working for it. It is corrupt because the very purpose of the the IOC and all its sub organizations is to allow those who angle their way into the inner family to use the means at their disposal to enrich themselves. The whole system is built on corruption.

When the USADA or the AFLD attempts to take over some part of anti-doping, it is viewed like another gang encroaching on the UCI's turf.

 

[python]

No one can dispute that Judge Sparks dismissed the initial complaint filed by Armstrong.

But anyone who understands the law of pleadings would know that the original complaint is at this point legally non-existent and utterly irrelevant to anything Judge Sparks is going to rule on. It has been superceded completely by the amended complaint.

If you were to "uncloud the issue in your mind" you'd realize this, and you'd also understand the gravity of the issues that are before this judge. Roll your eyes all you want, but this isn't going to be an easy decision for this judge.

you are wrong. dead wrong.

the dismissal of the armstrong verbosity and lack of substance in as harsh a tone as the judge has used, sets up a high bar (and a message) for the target of the rebuke.

as such it is present in the context of EVERY paper armstrong lawyers produced.

if you add to that the total disregard of local texas court rules for timely submittable of legal papers and the judges more than fair attitude still granting the importunity, you need not be a genius to perceive a human limit to this arrogance (i dont believe for a second it was incompetence).

judges are humans and if you game them too much with bs, they can hurt you.

pls, don't dismiss facts if they don't fit your apologist's position.

 

[MarkvW]

As Race Radio already pointed out, the judge said the initial filing was a load of crap.

It's only a difficult case for those that have an emotional involvement.

If you forget the name involved it's not a landmark case. Precedent and the rules are on the side of USADA.

Until recently, Armstrong himself was on the side of USADA.

Stapleton/Armstrong was basically a part of USADA.

Uncloud the issue in your mind.

The federal case isn't landmark anything. I agree with that. But the antidoping case is shaping up to be a huge landmark case.

First, the independence of USADA has been called into question. Is USADA/WADA independent, or can Pat Heinie or his successor intervene or take over at any time? CaN they simply terminate a USADA process that they deem to be unfair?

Second, USADA is going for the whole enchilada here. Is there no limitations period AT ALL if a doper engages in fraudulent concealment? This is huge.

Just these two issues promise to impact future antidoping cases big time. That is what I mean by a landmark case.

Armstrong in the federal courts, though, is just like spoiled crying little jerk Mary Decker--he should get the same treatment as her doping jerk ***: