USADA - Armstrong

[JRTinMA]

I smell something, what does BUCKWHEAT smell like?

 

[henryg]

Sparks' opinion explicitly declines to address the due process arguments-

Actually the judge addresses Armstrong's claims about due process directly:

''With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the court agrees they are without merit,''

 

[Jeremiah]

I smell something, what does BUCKWHEAT smell like?

A better question is, what does Napalm smell like?

 

[Catwhoorg]

A better question is, what does Napalm smell like?

Glorious! on a morning breeze.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

A better question is, what does Napalm smell like?

Victory...

 

[MacRoadie]

The way I see it, this case does set some "precedent" in so far as it serves to define what can and can't be argued in Federal court prior to an athlete exhausting the ADR process. Any time an argument is proferred in court, and a ruling is issued, there is some level of precedent set.

Obviously, the real issue for Sparks to decide was on SMJ, and he wasn't going to rule on anything else, but any future athletes who want to try to backdoor some other argument will hopefully see that the court just wont go there.

Certainly, the next time an athlete tries to go down the #unconstitutional route, or the #dueprocess route, PRIOR TO EXHAUSTING ADR, then "Armstrong v. USADA" will definitely have some bearing on their decision to file suit.

My two cents.

 

[python]

I smell something, what does BUCKWHEAT smell like?

Can you please take your personal crappie to pms or the appropriate threads. As Susan already requested. It is not fun to sift thru your personal attacks wrapped into contributions. Thank you.

 

[aphronesis]

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

You were second out of the gate. May not take much doing. I call taking eight years to nail down something that went on for at least 14 a bit lazy and/or inept. That's the basic claim. And they netted LA and some Europeans? Damn fine job.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the only valid discussion is speculation as to the precise ways in which LA will go down. All else is babble. I remember this thread from 2010.

 

[MacRoadie]

Actually the judge addresses Armstrong's claims about due process directly:

I could have sworn I read, right there on Page 2:

The Court finds (1) Armstrong's due process claims lack merit; and (2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, or alternatively declines to grnt equitable relief on those claims.

Seems like he could have simply chosen to include due process with the other claims, but chose to rule on it.

 

[henryg]

I call taking eight years to nail down something that went on for at least 14 a bit lazy and/or inept.

Not a surprise when there is entrenched and pervasive corruption and lots of money is riding on the corruption continuing.

 

[Race Radio]

You were second out of the gate. May not take much doing. I call taking eight years to nail down something that went on for at least 14 a bit lazy and/or inept. That's the basic claim. And they netted LA and some Europeans? Damn fine job.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently the only valid discussion is speculation as to the precise ways in which LA will go down. All else is babble. I remember this thread from 2010.

Thanks for proving my point, you are just here to troll

What evidence did USADA have 8 years ago? Without a positive test USADA would need significant evidence to sanction Armstrong and his buddies. What did they ignore for 8 years?

Simple question, one that you are unable, or unwilling, to answer.

How do you remember this thread in 2010 if you only joined in 2011? What banned uiser named were you using then?

 

[MacRoadie]

Also Page 12 of the Order:

With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the Court agrees that they are without merit and therefore dismisses them without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Certainly qualified as "without prejudice", but the second time the Court faces the due process claim head-on.

 

[henryg]

I
Seems like he could have simply chosen to include due process with the other claims, but chose to rule on it.

Sounds like a pretty definitive ruling on the issue of due process. In addition the court had this to say about the fairness of arbitration:

"declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it,"

 

[MacRoadie]

Also, what, exactly, does the Court address in Pages 12 through 16 of the order, under I. Due Process Claims ?

I'm clearly not a lawyer, but that seems a bit removed from:

Sparks' opinion explicitly declines to address the due process arguments-

From Page 18:

The Court therefore rejects Armstrong's due process claims, to the extent they challenge USADA's arbitration procedeures. Accordingly, the Court grants USADA's motion and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

Except where he explicitly addresses it?

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.

I say false stuff? Where? You called me on the false stuff that has been conclusively shown to be a figment of your imagination?

So due process might get brought up later?

Kind of like giving medicine after death, no?

Actually the judge addresses Armstrong's claims about due process directly:

''With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the court agrees they are without merit,''

I could have sworn I read, right there on Page 2:



Seems like he could have simply chosen to include due process with the other claims, but chose to rule on it.

The Court finds (1) Armstrong's due process claims lack merit; and (2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, or alternatively declines to grnt equitable relief on those claims.


With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the Court agrees that they are without merit and therefore dismisses them without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

 

[JRTinMA]

Except where he explicitly addresses it?



I say false stuff? Where? You called me on the false stuff that has been conclusively shown to be a figment of your imagination?

So due process might get brought up later?

Kind of like giving medicine after death, no?



''With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the court agrees they are without merit,''





The Court finds (1) Armstrong's due process claims lack merit; and (2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims, or alternatively declines to grnt equitable relief on those claims.


With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the Court agrees that they are without merit and therefore dismisses them without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Claiming the decision is precedent is an example.

 

[Jeremiah]

Claiming the decision is precedent is an example.

How is it not?

 

[MacRoadie]

Claiming the decision is precedent is an example.

I think suggesting that the Order, as a whole, sets some sort of precedent is certainly stretching it.

On the flip side, there are a number of rulings contained within the Order that would certainly dissuade another athlete from pursuing certain specific claims or theories.

 

[MacRoadie]

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.

The Court therefore rejects Armstrong's due process claims, to the extent they challenge USADA's arbitration procedeures. Accordingly, the Court grants USADA's motion and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the Court agrees that they are without merit and therefore dismisses them without prejudice for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Then there is the whole Page 12 through 18 "Analysis", specifically I. Due process Claims

Not trying to be argumentative, but am I missing something?

 

[Race Radio]

I think suggesting that the Order, as a whole, sets some sort of precedent is certainly stretching it.

On the flip side, there are a number of rulings contained within the Order that would certainly dissuade another athlete from persuing certain specific claims or theories.

true.

Certainly other athletes had tried similar strategies and failed. Sparks even cites some of them (Slaney), Given that Armstrong tried every conceivable option and still failed future dopers attempts to use the courts to evade sanction will be limited

 

[JRTinMA]

How is it not?

Bad trolling btw, when I see examples like yours I'm a little sad I gave it up for 2012.

In its most simple form all court decisions are precedent so party on with a win on a technicality. Of course, you were refering to a binding precedent where future cases can reference a past decision, this is not an example of precedent. Those decisions would typically would come from the SJC or appeals court.

 

[Jeremiah]

No!

I think suggesting that the Order, as a whole, sets some sort of precedent is certainly stretching it.

On the flip side, there are a number of rulings contained within the Order that would certainly dissuade another athlete from persuing certain specific claims or theories.

Then there is the whole Page 12 through 18 "Analysis", specifically I. Due process Claims

Not trying to be argumentative, but am I missing something?

You're not missing anything. Why you're asking a guy who clearly cannot see wtf is going on is beyond me.

Goes back to the Richard Pryor, "Are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

This is what a precedent is. I'm not going to say more in the hopes up sucking JRT into making some silly statement which I can then blast at.

It's a precedent though. I mean it was settled law to people like RR who can completely see through Armstrong's bs.

Apparently not settled enough for Armstrong and his paid liars to think they could advance what they thought was some novel legal theory.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

The big Q now is, will he accept the ban or go for a public hearing?

My fear is, he will accept the ban, and all evidence is hidden forever.
In this case, can USADA strip him at least of his 7 TdF titles?

If it was asked before, sorry. But with 900 pages, it is difficult to keep an overview...

 

[JRTinMA]

I think suggesting that the Order, as a whole, sets some sort of precedent is certainly stretching it.

On the flip side, there are a number of rulings contained within the Order that would certainly dissuade another athlete from pursuing certain specific claims or theories.

The clear precedent is to not waste money on frivolous lawsuits against USADA when you have previously agreed to the terms.

 

[mewmewmew13]

The big Q now is, will he accept the ban or go for a public hearing?

My fear is, he will accept the ban, and all evidence is hidden forever.
In this case, can USADA strip him at least of his 7 TdF titles?

If it was asked before, sorry. But with 900 pages, it is difficult to keep an overview...

Hi foxxy
I enjoy your enthusiasm

My understanding is that even if he accepts the ban that information will still get out, as per others involved? I may well be wrong....