USADA - Armstrong

[QuickStepper]

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.

Actually, I'm not wrong on this, and if you could look at this a bit more dispassionately, and also knew anything about the rules of pleading, you'd recognize that you're just reacting to this stuff in an emotional manner. As someone else said, take the emotion out of it and just look at the law. Justice is, after all, blind for a reason.

No one in this case has a "total disregard of local texas court rules." Armstrong's attorneys simply got it wrong when their response to the motion was due. So what? The judge gave them additional time, but didn't give them everything they wanted because it would have been unfair to USADA. Again, so what?

None of that has anything to do with the LEGAL question that this judge is being asked to rule on, which is whether or not there is or isn't subject matter jurisdiction. The rest is all window-dressing.

 

[veganrob]

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.

Buck Up little fella. Everything will be just fine.

 

[QuickStepper]

Not on the subject of what Judge Sparks will or won't do. . .because all we can do is speculate on that, I have another question.

Assuming this matter continues on into a USADA (or UCI) arbitration, is anyone else bothered by the standard of proof to which the arbitrators are held and by which they are permitted to make a decision concerning the imposition of sanctions against an athlete? Prior to WADA, the standard was in most jurisdictions, including the U.S., "beyond a reasonable doubt", i.e.,, the same as it is in U.S. criminal courts.

However, with the adoption of the WADA Code, the USDA adopted the WADA sttandard of proof, which means that all USADA need establish is that a violation of a doping rule occurred “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body.”

"Comfortable satisfaction?" What does that even mean?

This standard of proof, by the way, wasn't adopted by USADA until just prior to the 2004 Athens Olympics, based on a vote of all of the international governing bodies at a 2003 IOC convention. That convention vote established that all anti-doping agencies had to bring themselves into compliance with WADA's rules and code provisions, including the standard of proof to be applied to adjudications against athletes prior to the commencement of the Olympics that year.

So, assuming the Armstrong litigation gets dismissed, and the case goes to arbitration, given that USADA is looking at, as someone else described it above, "the whole enchilada" going back well before 2003, i.e., into the 1990's, which standard of proof should apply?

If the case is handled like any other trial then the rule in force at the time of trial would likely apply; this is what happens, for example with the law of damages and what can and cannot be awarded to a litigant. But in the context of a USADA arbitration, I have no idea what the USADA rules say about this subject or whether the question has even come up before in the context of USADA anti-doping arbitration, nor whether the FAA rules addresses the subject either.

 

[MarkvW]

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.

Plissken, you're not making sense here. The relevant facts are NOT in dispute and this sub-dispute does not implicate any other discretionary calls. The Judge IN THIS INSTANCE has no scope to do mischief. If he makes a boo boo he's going to get called on it sooner or later by the Court of Appeals. Essentially, this is a legal puzzle, that's all.

And your "Judges are Human" pronouncement is not fully thought out. What are humans? Unpredictable as f***! Anybody who has been in the courtroom of a fair judge enough times has been victimized by the judge bending over backwards to be fair to the lawyer who has been treating him/her like excrement.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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 ***:

This 100%.

Thanks Mark. Your contributions today have been very insightful, especially the observation regarding the right of the USADA to proceed under the USOC's line of authority. That was not your average observation.

The idea here that this will be "landmark" or that the briefs being filed are "diametrically opposed" ignores the weight of case law on the issue of arbitration. To be "diametrically opposed" Armstrong's attorneys would have to be opposing with as weighty precedent as is the USADA, and it is laughable to suggest that is the case.

One other thing I noted from the USADA's letter today was their pointing out that Armstrong had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing. That wording is classic because it comes from a SCOTUS ruling on the right of people to seek redress in court as opposed to arbitration. I can't remember the case right now, but I will find it. The reality is that Armstrong hasn't used ANY administrative remedy before filing his case.

I don't think the jurisdiction question is going to be that tough to decide regardless of the level of passion one feels for any particular side. I don't pretend to be dispassionate about this. I leave that to some others who think they don't quack like a duck, but regardless, this doesn't seem to be that hard of a call. Of course, there is always a chance, but that has to be regarded as being long in the odds department.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Not on the subject of what Judge Sparks will or won't do. . .because all we can do is speculate on that, I have another question.

Assuming this matter continues on into a USADA (or UCI) arbitration, is anyone else bothered by the standard of proof to which the arbitrators are held and by which they are permitted to make a decision concerning the imposition of sanctions against an athlete? Prior to WADA, the standard was in most jurisdictions, including the U.S., "beyond a reasonable doubt", i.e.,, the same as it is in U.S. criminal courts.

However, with the adoption of the WADA Code, the USDA adopted the WADA sttandard of proof, which means that all USADA need establish is that a violation of a doping rule occurred “to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing body.”

"Comfortable satisfaction?" What does that even mean?

This standard of proof, by the way, wasn't adopted by USADA until just prior to the 2004 Athens Olympics, based on a vote of all of the international governing bodies at a 2003 IOC convention. That convention vote established that all anti-doping agencies had to bring themselves into compliance with WADA's rules and code provisions, including the standard of proof to be applied to adjudications against athletes prior to the commencement of the Olympics that year.

So, assuming the Armstrong litigation gets dismissed, and the case goes to arbitration, given that USADA is looking at, as someone else described it above, "the whole enchilada" going back well before 2003, i.e., into the 1990's, which standard of proof should apply?

If the case is handled like any other trial then the rule in force at the time of trial would likely apply; this is what happens, for example with the law of damages and what can and cannot be awarded to a litigant. But in the context of a USADA arbitration, I have no idea what the USADA rules say about this subject or whether the question has even come up before in the context of USADA anti-doping arbitration, nor whether the FAA rules addresses the subject either.

No.............................

If the court is going to force almost powerless consumers into forced arbitration simply by accepting shrink-wrapped terms and conditions when the guy delivers a package to their house (essentially forcing them to ignore any claim that does not have the prospect of gaining them significant money), and they have to abide by a lesser standard of proof, why should I shed a tear because a junkie liar got busted for being the biggest fraud in sporting history? If you want to fight arbitration, choose someone who is really powerless. You'll have to excuse me if I find your disturbance in this case to be a bit funny. Armstrong has enough money that he has a shot at subverting justice (because only a fool believes he isn't guilty of doping), so **** him. If you want to fight for someone who is being railroaded by arbitration, there are millions of people out there much more deserving than that sucmbag of a hero you so want to see walk.

 

[python]

Actually, I'm not wrong on this, and if you could look at this a bit more dispassionately, and also knew anything about the rules of pleading, you'd recognize that you're just reacting to this stuff in an emotional manner. As someone else said, take the emotion out of it and just look at the law. Justice is, after all, blind for a reason.

No one in this case has a "total disregard of local texas court rules." Armstrong's attorneys simply got it wrong when their response to the motion was due. So what? The judge gave them additional time, but didn't give them everything they wanted because it would have been unfair to USADA. Again, so what?

None of that has anything to do with the LEGAL question that this judge is being asked to rule on, which is whether or not there is or isn't subject matter jurisdiction. The rest is all window-dressing.

not only you are wrong, but you pretending to be dispassionate whilst hiding behind legal verbiage...


the issue was you nonsensical statement that the 1st dismissal has nothing to do with succeeding issues.

i clearly showed that just cutting the bs from those papers had everything to do with the 1st ruling.

so spare us from your 'dispassionate' assessments. please. all you postings are those of an apologist.

 

[python]

Plissken, you're not making sense here. The relevant facts are NOT in dispute and this sub-dispute does not implicate any other discretionary calls. The Judge IN THIS INSTANCE has no scope to do mischief. If he makes a boo boo he's going to get called on it sooner or later by the Court of Appeals. Essentially, this is a legal puzzle, that's all.

And your "Judges are Human" pronouncement is not fully thought out. What are humans? Unpredictable as f***! Anybody who has been in the courtroom of a fair judge enough times has been victimized by the judge bending over backwards to be fair to the lawyer who has been treating him/her like excrement.

sorry but it's you who are not making sense. judges are humans and their ruling are subject to a variety of human impulses that they are not supposed to but may or may mix in.

when the rules of procedure and substantive law clash or are less than cristal clear, things like the litigants motivation, abuse of procedure etc do enter the scene.

 

[MarkvW]

sorry but it's you who are not making sense. judges are humans and their ruling are subject to a variety of human impulses that they are not supposed to but may or may mix in.

when the rules of procedure and substantive law clash or are less than cristal clear, things like the litigants motivation, abuse of procedure etc do enter the scene.

But humanity doesn't come into this decision! This is very close to a pure question of law. If the law is clear, it is as simple as arithmetic. If the law is not clear, the Court of Appeals is going to have the final say anyway. Judge Sparks doesn't have any room possible to unfairly screw Armstrong or USADA and get away with it.

Your "humanity" point is generally sound, but it doesn't apply in this particular instance.

 

[python]

But humanity doesn't come into this decision! This is very close to a pure question of law. If the law is clear, it is as simple as arithmetic. If the law is not clear, the Court of Appeals is going to have the final say anyway. Judge Sparks doesn't have any room possible to unfairly screw Armstrong or USADA and get away with it.

Your "humanity" point is generally sound, but it doesn't apply in this particular instance.

this is exactly where you and those like you forget that the case is not a computer game as much as you pretend to undestand it

one person, judge sparks, is asked to pass his best judgement on what he himself said is a confusing sporting jurisdiction.

there is absolutely no guarantee that every judge in his position would pass exactly the same verdict. hence the interpretation of conflicting sporting rules is an interpretation of a human.

i am aware of some cases when those humans imposed harsh verdicts and additional penalties because they judged one of the litigants ABUSED the court.

repeat, abused the court. this has nothing to do with law but with how those in the position to judge FELT.

 

[BroDeal]

sorry but it's you who are not making sense. judges are humans and their ruling are subject to a variety of human impulses that they are not supposed to but may or may mix in.

I'll go with this. The more convoluted an issue is, the more opportunity for a judge's personal biases to rule the day. And this issue looks like a quagmire of competing interests and rule changes that stretch back more than a decade.

Texas justice deserves its own Fark tag.

 

[QuickStepper]

But humanity doesn't come into this decision! This is very close to a pure question of law. If the law is clear, it is as simple as arithmetic. If the law is not clear, the Court of Appeals is going to have the final say anyway. Judge Sparks doesn't have any room possible to unfairly screw Armstrong or USADA and get away with it.

Your "humanity" point is generally sound, but it doesn't apply in this particular instance.

Yes. Yes. And yes.

 

[BotanyBay]

This is funny. Lance's buddies at the AP are looking for anything positive out of this



USAC must have forgotten that WADA already said that the UCI "Interpretation" was completely incorrect

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102398382/WADA-Letter-to-UCI

Some disappointed gamers are trying to hit the reset button. And the gamers are the mafia that is UCI and USAC.

 

[MarkvW]

this is exactly where you and those like you forget that the case is not a computer game as much as you pretend to undestand it

one person, judge sparks, is asked to pass his best judgement on what he himself said is a confusing sporting jurisdiction.

there is absolutely no guarantee that every judge in his position would pass exactly the same verdict. hence the interpretation of conflicting sporting rules is an interpretation of a human.

i am aware of some cases when those humans imposed harsh verdicts and additional penalties because they judged one of the litigants ABUSED the court.

repeat, abused the court. this has nothing to do with law but with how those in the position to judge FELT.

Verdicts and penalties are discretionary calls. Judges are given slack when it comes to discretionary calls (they only get reversed when NO other reasonable judge could come to the same conclusion).

Discretionary calls are where bad judges can do damage--precisely because they get judicial discretion (slack).

This particular jurisdictional question doesn't implicate discretion. The judge gets no slack, period. If he does something that the Court of Appeals doesn't like, he gets reversed.

Judge Sparks doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with his decision on this particular jurisdictional hearing. He has no room to do the bad things you hypothecate--because the Court of Appeals will just undo any unfair acts.

 

[Race Radio]

While some like to pretend that Wonderboy's paid liars delivered only the best verbiage money can buy it is hard to overlook such gems as this one

USADA Has No Authority to Bring Charges Against a Retired Cyclist.

The craptastic display by Herman and his buddies is rightly a target of ridicule. They blew it

 

[QuickStepper]

not only you are wrong, but you pretending to be dispassionate whilst hiding behind legal verbiage...


the issue was you nonsensical statement that the 1st dismissal has nothing to do with succeeding issues.

i clearly showed that just cutting the bs from those papers had everything to do with the 1st ruling.

so spare us from your 'dispassionate' assessments. please. all you postings are those of an apologist.

You and Chewbacca crack me up. Just because I haven't come out and said Armstrong is a piece of **** who deserves to be pilloried, or that he's rich and therefore doesn't deserve "justice" (oh, really, do only the poor and downtrodden deserve a fair trial?), I'm an "apologist" ?

You make me laugh. Really, just hilarious.

 

[QuickStepper]

Python, let's try this on for size and see if it fits:

I will agree with you that this is a confusing and confused issue of "sporting jurisdiction." The facts that are involved in the question of who has jurisdiction is anything but clear.

But the law is not unclear. And the subject of whether the federal court has jurisdiction is, as MarkvW said, about as close to a pure question of law as one can get.

Can we agree on at least that much?

 

[MarkvW]

I'll go with this. The more convoluted an issue is, the more opportunity for a judge's personal biases to rule the day. And this issue looks like a quagmire of competing interests and rule changes that stretch back more than a decade.

Texas justice deserves its own Fark tag.

Type in Frank Minis Johnson in Wikipedia. A federal judge in Alabama in the fifties and sixties, and one of the greatest judges in American history. Federal judges are independent of local politics because they have lifetime appointments.

Stereotyping federal judges as local judges is a big mistake.

 

[BroDeal]

Type in Frank Minis Johnson in Wikipedia. A federal judge in Alabama in the fifties and sixties, and one of the greatest judges in American history. Federal judges are independent of local politics because they have lifetime appointments.

Stereotyping federal judges as local judges is a big mistake.

People don't forget where they came from. It may be especially true for people who were members of a student association that promotes Texas.

It must be nice to live in a world where judges are unbiased and always get things right.

 

[python]

Verdicts and penalties are discretionary calls. Judges are given slack when it comes to discretionary calls (they only get reversed when NO other reasonable judge could come to the same conclusion).

Discretionary calls are where bad judges can do damage--precisely because they get judicial discretion (slack).

This particular jurisdictional question doesn't implicate discretion. The judge gets no slack, period. If he does something that the Court of Appeals doesn't like, he gets reversed.

Judge Sparks doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with his decision on this particular jurisdictional hearing. He has no room to do the bad things you hypothecate--because the Court of Appeals will just undo any unfair acts.

this is more of the same abstract legal motherhoods that continue missing the point - there is a very real subjective element to all judgements including any appeal judgements.

those following the multidimensional REAL world, unlike you, are well aware of amazing racially-motivated verdicts, crazy but in reality politically-skewed legal decisions.

not to mention always legally justified obfuscation government machines which are nothing but covered-up schemes....

so, please spare me the abstract law nonsense and humans being just the nuts and bolts.

i am a scientist plenty trained on abstractions and all i know it's still up to a human.

 

[QuickStepper]

Type in Frank Minis Johnson in Wikipedia. A federal judge in Alabama in the fifties and sixties, and one of the greatest judges in American history. Federal judges are independent of local politics because they have lifetime appointments.

Stereotyping federal judges as local judges is a big mistake.

Yup, and while you're at it, Google "Alcee Hastings" just to keep this all in balance. Federal Judges do have lifetime appointments, and if they misbehave they can only be removed by impeachment proceedings before the U.S. Senate. Of course, even being removed for corruption didn't stop Hastings from getting himself elected to the U.S. Congress.

There's good and bad everywhere, and I do, upon reflection, at least agree with Python that to the extent we're talking about decisions that are being made by a human being, that human is going to come to the table not as a clean slate, nor will he operate like a machine. I also agree with you, that if Judge Sparks errs, the court of appeal will likely get a chance to correct it. Whether the 5th Circuit actually does correct any error, assuming one is made, though isn't guaranteed, and even a Court of Appeals is wrong at times. It all depends whose ox is being gored.

On the other hand, if Judge Sparks is a good and honest judge and faithfully discharges his duty, he will render an impartial decision based only on the evidence before him, and not the arguments of counsel.

Which reminds me: In California, there is a standard jury instruction that is given to every jury in every case, which cautions the finders of fact not to be persuaded unduly by the arguments of counsel. "The arguments of counsel are not evidence in this matter."

We should all keep that in mind.

 

[BotanyBay]

While some like to pretend that Wonderboy's paid liars delivered only the best verbiage money can buy it is hard to overlook such gems as this one



The craptastic display by Herman and his buddies is rightly a target of ridicule. They blew it

More Jedi mind tricks. These are the droids we're looking for!

 

[Race Radio]

Python, let's try this on for size and see if it fits:

I will agree with you that this is a confusing and confused issue of "sporting jurisdiction."

It is not confusing in the slightest. The rules are clear, which is why McQuaid said for 2 years this was USADA's case. The UCI has never tried to disrupt WADA like this and is only doing so because they know that a big part of USADA's case will be the corruption of the UCI and the culpability of USAC

In their desperation they are trying to confuse the issues as much as possible in the slim hope Sparks will make a mistake.

 

[MarkvW]

this is more of the same abstract legal motherhoods that continue missing the point - there is a very real subjective element to all judgements including any appeal judgements.

those following the multidimensional REAL world, unlike you, are well aware of amazing racially-motivated verdicts, crazy but in reality politically-skewed legal decisions.

not to mention always legally justified obfuscation government machines which are nothing but covered-up schemes....

so, please spare me the abstract law nonsense and humans being just the nuts and bolts.

i am a scientist plenty trained on abstractions and all i know it's still up to a human.

You are generalizing. I am talking about a specific situation. In this specific situation, Sparks' decision, whether driven by computer, emotion, or thumb up his ****, isn't really that important. The Court of Appeals is going to decide the issue anyway--without any deference to Sparks.

So any negative emotion that Sparks may have regarding Lance's lawyers won't make a darn bit of difference in the ultimate outcome.

And as another famous Alabama man once said: "And that's all I have to say about that."

 

[MarkvW]

It is not confusing in the slightest. The rules are clear, which is why McQuaid said for 2 years this was USADA's case. The UCI has never tried to disrupt WADA like this and is only doing so because they know that a big part of USADA's case will be the corruption of the UCI and the culpability of USAC

In their desperation they are trying to confuse the issues as much as possible in the slim hope Sparks will make a mistake.

Yeah. If Lance had a winner, or a near winner, his lawyers would have written a good brief.