USADA - Armstrong

[JRTinMA]

was one sided...

USADA has more power than ever despite Sparks' supposed harsh criticism?

You don't think Armstrong v USADA will be a tool in the anti doping agency's arsenal?

I ask you again were you outraged by the one sided portrayal of the dismissal in this story?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit

USADA's jurisdiction has been affirmed by the judge and LA will lose his titles and results. I'm not sure they have more power but its been established they are within their rights to move to end game. I'm not sure I understand your last question, a tool in the arsenal or affirmation the arbitration process is constitutional but the judge will keep an eye on it. That is actually important to USADA although they will not make any mistakes on this one.

 

[Digger]

Again there seems to be a confusion of sitting on thumbs and sitting on evidence. Why are these being made synonymous. People in NY told me about this years ago. I can't say when the USADA knew it, but that's not my point.

A question: why are you so defensive of the USADA? They're achieving an objective that suits your interests; you can't imagine that they could be subject to criticism?

You tell me who was willing to go on the record against Lance, prior to Landis, and give that level of inside knowledge?
Others gave details of specific incidents but no one prior to 2010 gave that much detail over a prolonged period of time...because of the Fed investigation, USADA could do nothing for two years.
So your post is nonsensical.

 

[Kretch]

Your comment is ridiculous. There had already been an article detailing the dismissal of the case by Judge Sparks. If you read her work or her tweets you will see she is far from an apologist or a shill for the LA PR machine. The judge pointed out some concerns he had about the USADA process, she reported them. As a last resort, you could practice some critical thinking and take the article at face value or get all excited over nothing and demand she's "called out".

The way it works JRT is that the people that really matter in all this are the Nike/Livestrong wearing, Trek riding, Oakley sporting, Ultra swilling, ignoramuses that only watch cycling once a year and listen to Phil, Paul and Bobke while doing so. That is the market and that is where the dollars are. Headlines such as "Judge Issues Stinging Criticism of USADA in Armstrong Case" are perfect fodder for the LA fog machine.

For those of us with time/interest for more in-depth research we can reflect on the rest of Laura's work and her tweets and all the other articles regarding the case and come to our own conclusions. The people that matter though are only ever likely to read that headline. And out of context that headline is not balanced.

 

[Jeremiah]

Step back from the trees bro!

I ask you again were you outraged by the one sided portrayal of the dismissal in this story?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-sides-with-usada-in-armstrong-suit

USADA's jurisdiction has been affirmed by the judge and LA will lose his titles and results. I'm not sure they have more power but its been established they are within their rights to move to end game. I'm not sure I understand your last question, a tool in the arsenal or affirmation the arbitration process is constitutional but the judge will keep an eye on it. That is actually important to USADA although they will not make any mistakes on this one.

The dismissal was one sided.

All of the other "opinions" emanating from Sparks had the effect of, ah nothing but to soothe and placate Armstrong's hurt feelings.

"Due process" has been exposed as a wholly inapplicable legal theory wrt athletes contesting a doping charge.

The first bolded part illustrates that you still don't understand how devastating the ruling was to Armstrong.

The second bolded shows that you don't understand how the law works. This case is now legal precedent.

Some $hithead like Armstrong will no longer be able to invoke this due process bs legal theory to contest a doping charge.

Now USADA has the power to go back 14 YEARS to pursue fraud. I'm not aware that this has happened before.

Please pay attention.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Can you guys please settle this snit with pm's ?
It's clogging the pages interminably..... Thmx

 

[zigmeister]

it didn't seem like that, there was some criticism of USADA, but Sparks dismissed everthing of Armstrongs. So to pick up on what Sparks had to say about USADA was unfair to the 30 pages. He totally dismissed Armstrong with some comments towards USADA.

Yes, we know that. But it continues to point out, by yet another impartial logical person, that the USADA had no intentions to even follow its own procedures for arbitration. It comes off as entirely arbitrary and seemingly vendetta based.

That is the judges point. A judge can throw statements and viewpoints in his written opinion, which he did. He also could have chosen NOT to write anything but the basic opinion and ruling of the suit, and be done with it.

So the fact that he wrote more on the subject and showed concerns, and then got the USADA to "assure" him they will provide evidence before the arbitration and follow basic rules/standards of such also says a great deal about the process in general.

This is completely valid.

 

[JRTinMA]

The dismissal was one sided.

All of the other "opinions" emanating from Sparks had the effect of, ah nothing but to soothe and placate Armstrong's hurt feelings.

"Due process" has been exposed as a wholly inapplicable legal theory wrt athletes contesting a doping charge.

The first bolded part illustrates that you still don't understand how devastating the ruling was to Armstrong.

The second bolded shows that you don't understand how the law works. This case is now legal precedent.

Some $hithead like Armstrong will no longer be able to invoke this due process bs legal theory to contest a doping charge.

Now USADA has the power to go back 14 YEARS to pursue fraud. I'm not aware that this has happened before.

Please pay attention.

The precedent is meaningless, you do not understand the law or precedent. Ok to the rest of your post, as I have said all along, he will lose everything.

 

[JRTinMA]

The way it works JRT is that the people that really matter in all this are the Nike/Livestrong wearing, Trek riding, Oakley sporting, Ultra swilling, ignoramuses that only watch cycling once a year and listen to Phil, Paul and Bobke while doing so. That is the market and that is where the dollars are. Headlines such as "Judge Issues Stinging Criticism of USADA in Armstrong Case" are perfect fodder for the LA fog machine.

For those of us with time/interest for more in-depth research we can reflect on the rest of Laura's work and her tweets and all the other articles regarding the case and come to our own conclusions. The people that matter though are only ever likely to read that headline. And out of context that headline is not balanced.

I guess I am wrong in assuming those people would never come here. You think they do.

 

[MarkvW]

The dismissal was one sided.

All of the other "opinions" emanating from Sparks had the effect of, ah nothing but to soothe and placate Armstrong's hurt feelings.

"Due process" has been exposed as a wholly inapplicable legal theory wrt athletes contesting a doping charge.

The first bolded part illustrates that you still don't understand how devastating the ruling was to Armstrong.

The second bolded shows that you don't understand how the law works. This case is now legal precedent.

Some $hithead like Armstrong will no longer be able to invoke this due process bs legal theory to contest a doping charge.

Please pay attention.

Before you tell others to pay attention, you should yourself pay attention.

Sparks' opinion explicitly declines to address the due process arguments--it does not "expose" due process as a "wholly inapplicable legal theory." In fact, the Judge assumed that the due process theory was a valid legal theory and ruled against Armstrong anyway.

The bottom line is that Lance's due process argument was neither accepted or rejected--the judge didn't need to respond to that argument, so he didn't.

 

[Jeremiah]

Why am I arguing with you?

The precedent is meaningless, you do not understand the law or precedent. Ok to the rest of your post, as I have said all along, he will lose everything.

Your recent post about Clemmons shows how out of touch you are.

 

[aphronesis]

As opposed to the interests of fraud on whose side you're on?

Look, the judge ruled and it's a correct and devastating defeat for Armstrong and his fans.



My condolences.

Not a fan and I haven't mentioned the judges ruling other than to question the belatedness of the USADA's activity. You can differentiate that?

 

[aphronesis]

Oh, I see you are just trolling.

Let us know when you have anything to back up your claim

which claim is that? trolling in this case being any opinion that doesn't coincide with yours?

 

[JRTinMA]

Before you tell others to pay attention, you should yourself pay attention.

Sparks' opinion explicitly declines to address the due process arguments--it does not "expose" due process as a "wholly inapplicable legal theory." In fact, the Judge assumed that the due process theory was a valid legal theory and ruled against Armstrong anyway.

The bottom line is that Lance's due process argument was neither accepted or rejected--the judge didn't need to respond to that argument, so he didn't.

He has no clue about precedent but it really doesn't matter to the case.

 

[Jeremiah]

I'll slow down for you

Before you tell others to pay attention, you should yourself pay attention.

Sparks' opinion explicitly declines to address the due process arguments--it does not "expose" due process as a "wholly inapplicable legal theory." In fact, the Judge assumed that the due process theory was a valid legal theory and ruled against Armstrong anyway.

The bottom line is that Lance's due process argument was neither accepted or rejected--the judge didn't need to respond to that argument, so he didn't.

SO IT DOESN'T APPLY!, IT HAS NO EFFECT, IT'S MEANINGLESS!

And in fact many were arguing that that argument would avert an arbitration by USADA, stop it in it's tracks.

Due process is not a valid legal theory for dopers who want to get out of facing the music on accusations of doping from governing bodies.

Thanks for the meaningless distinction.

Being that "due process" doesn't serve Armstrong's ends his counsel might as well as have replaced the due process argument with discussions of Armstrong's favorite movies.

Sparks didn't rule on any movie discussions either, did he?

Dude, what's the price of tea in China?

 

[JRTinMA]

Your recent post about Clemmons shows how out of touch you are.

I didn't post about Clemmons.

 

[Benotti69]

Not a fan and I haven't mentioned the judges ruling other than to question the belatedness of the USADA's activity. You can differentiate that?

Do you know why USADA waited?

Were they collecting evidence before the Feds, then couldn't bring any charges due to the Fed investigation, but due to the Fed investigation made a bountiful harvest and now we find the are able to bring a case, probably much bigger than any expected.

 

[MarkvW]

Due process is not a valid legal theory for dopers who want to get out of facing the music on accusations of doping from governing bodies.

Thanks for the meaningless distinction.

Being that "due process" doesn't serve Armstrong's ends his counsel might as well as have replaced the due process argument with discussions of Armstrong's favorite movies.

Sparks didn't rule on any movie discussions either, did he?

Dude, what's the price of tea in China?

You say false stuff, get called on it, then go all weird? I don't think you've read the opinion. You are more into troll baiting.

Due process is something that might be brought up later . . . . At the time sanctions actually get imposed.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Your recent post about Clemmons shows how out of touch you are.

http://www.clemmons.org/

 

[Race Radio]

which claim is that? trolling in this case being any opinion that doesn't coincide with yours?

Nope, You make a claim. When asked to support that claim you produce nothing to support your claim but rambling posts that contribute nothing to the discussion.

Mission accomplish, you were able to get others to respond to your babble

 

[Jeremiah]

You say false stuff, get called on it, then go all weird? I don't think you've read the opinion. You are more into troll baiting.

Due process is something that might be brought up later . . . . At the time sanctions actually get imposed.

Misrepresentation and personal attack in one sentence! Congrats on the economy!

Please tell me how due process applies for Armstrong to get an injunction against USADA?

You apparently haven't read the decision, even what I've cited here.

The Judge accepted USADA counsel's assurances that all of Armstrong's due process concerns would be satisfied and explicitly stated that Armstrong has gotten all the due process he's entitled to at the present time.

I think those two statements are close to what the judge actually wrote in is decision. You can go back and find them.

You say "Due process is something that might be brought up later . . . . At the time sanctions actually get imposed."

You do realize that this is all about a life and death struggle by Armstrong to avoid the USADA arbitration process?

Here's a newsflash, and I though you were paying attention rather than focusing on meaningless points with no point.

LATER IS TOO LATE FOR ARMSTRONG! The parade of witnesses is the end of him.

Please, wake up to reality.

 

[veganrob]

IMHO, the ruling was on jurisdiction, nothing else. Whatever Sparks says besides this has nothing to do with anything. His job is over. Well done.
Their seem to be so many other false claims about reading between the lines, USADA now have to provide evidence to LA blah, blah I don't think so. I am not a law guy at all so basing my opinion on common sense.
Could be wrong but

 

[Kretch]

I guess I am wrong in assuming those people would never come here. You think they do.

Irrelevant. The LA fog machine picking up that headline and spinning out to the more mainstream media is the point.

 

[Jeremiah]

http://www.clemmons.org/

Apparently a place where the fragrance of man love fills the air!

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

My usual warning: Everyone calm down. Stop taking things so personally. Take your personal tiffs to PMs. No trolling.

Susan

 

[Jeremiah]

Not a fan and I haven't mentioned the judges ruling other than to question the belatedness of the USADA's activity. You can differentiate that?

And you can appreciate the fact that criminals often do everything in their power to conceal their crimes and to buy off and threaten anyone who may expose those crimes?

Apparently not!