USADA - Armstrong

[thehog]

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?

This is circular Mark. He likes the sound of his own keyboard. I’m sure he talks to himself. He often makes mistake then tries to clean it up by claiming that’s facts have “precise” meanings in Federal Court etc etc etc.

Seen it all before. You've done well to call him out.

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

Of course it was settled before but then why is Armstrong wasting the Court's time with it? Apparently it wasn't settled enought for public/fanboy consumption and how this crap affects the public is where the rubber meets the rosd.

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

What's your success rates on your facts and predictions? The facts close to 100% and predictions are pretty high too but you can't count on the Borats of the world making politically influenced decisions.

In spite of this, the Armstrong faithful still insist on arguing with you. It's absurd.

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.

But you're the one arguing and making material misstatements of fact regarding what the Judge in this case did and did not say.

You're the one arguing tangential bs points! To what end, I have no idea.

Maybe you can send Armstrong a tweet encouraging him to appeal the decision, in hopes that some Judge ****ing to an Armstrong poster will overturn!

So you're betting Armstrong will win on appeal?

It's over....

Here's a question. Since Armstrong's arguments had been so conclusively settled before, why is he bringing the case using those arguments, and why is every imbecile who is a fan of Armstrong's arguing that his constitutional rights are being violated?

As for legal precedents, the SCOTUS made new law regarding those (precedents) out of wholecloth with their criminality in Bush v Gore.

With that decision they completely undermined any thinking persons faith in the US criminal justice system as an impartial arbiter of the law.

 

[goober]

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...

Again, he is working on his speech right now

 

[Jeremiah]

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.

Understand this, this is as binding as it gets as it goes without saying or needing a citation that "due process" will not come up again as a defense to a doping allegation by a governing body.

So again, what point are you trying to make that, technically an appeals court did not rule here?

What's the price of tea in China?

 

[Microchip]

Again, he is working on his speech right now

Slowtwitch: ...I did the LSC 100 miler today in Philly. Lance said a few words at the beginning. He started by saying he pounded a few the night before and while he had planned to ride 100 miles that was not going to be the case....

I think he might have as he was dressed in his kit and had a helmet on. My reaction was more to his comments. I was standing next to a father and young (say 14 years old) son when he talked about his exploits and the son was a bit incredulous when he asked his Dad if Lance wasn't riding because he was drunk....

Or perhaps this.

 

[FitSsikS]

Again, he is working on his speech right now

Someone should start a poll on how many times the words 'cancer' and 'awareness' will appear in the aforementioned speech.

 

[Kretch]

Again, he is working on his speech right now

My crystal ball says the same. Wet squib fizzle out here we come. And lots of people, beyond the LA clan, interested in keeping the evidence under wraps.

 

[Race Radio]

Again, he is working on his speech right now

ahhh, the long awaited managed confession

 

[MacRoadie]

My crystal ball says the same. Wet squib fizzle out here we come. And lots of people, beyond the LA clan, interested in keeping the evidence under wraps.

But then, USADA can still release a Finding of Fact that has plenty of detail to it.

 

[ebandit]

guilty

ahhh, the long awaited managed confession

will lance start with...........'if I had used PEDS how could I look My kids in the Face Ever Again.........They would know that I was a Cheat and a Liar'

like the Rest of Us

although I did Hear of a Couple in Outer Mongolia Who had Not Heard that lance had doped

sorry! there is No Link for that Snippet.......They do Not have Access to the Web

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Again, he is working on his speech right now

The rest of the evidence will come out during the others arbitration, if of course, they show up for it.

If they don't, the witnesses may choose to divulge anyway as long as they do not breach the deals made with the GJ.

 

[Kretch]

If they don't, the witnesses may choose to divulge anyway as long as they do not breach the deals made with the GJ.

Who would choose this and why?

 

[Briant_Gumble]

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...

I don't know if it was part of their plan but it seems a good move on the part of USADA to date Armstrong's offences back to 1998. Even if it's something that might not hold up at CAS, as far forcing Armstrong into arbitration it's significant, if it was one title he might let it go and just say USADA are corrupt.

 

[eyemgh]

ahhh, the long awaited managed confession

I don't think there's any way his ego will let him approach anything like a confession.

The speech will be something like this, "In an effort to stop the waste of tax-payer dollars by the USADA, I'm electing not to contest a witchhunt where the conclusions have already been drawn. I've been bled 46,000 times and never have tested positive. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously a ****** and must be profiting in some way by hoping for my demise. I will continue to focus on propping up my image in order to prop up the awareness of cancer. Hook 'em horns!"

 

[MarkvW]

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:



From Page 18:

The Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to determine Armstrong's Due Process claims, so it dismissed them. The question of whether Due Process can be brought up after the arbitration/sanction process is completed was undecided. The question of whether Armstrong was entitled to Due Process was undecided. The question of whether USADA was acting as a state actor (needed for Due Process) was undecided.

 

[Race Radio]

I don't think there's any way his ego will let him approach anything like a confession.

The speech will be something like this, "In an effort to stop the waste of tax-payer dollars by the USADA, I'm electing not to contest a witchhunt where the conclusions have already been drawn. I've been bled 46,000 times and never have tested positive. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously a ****** and must be profiting in some way by hoping for my demise. I will continue to focus on propping up my image in order to prop up the awareness of cancer. Hook 'em horns!"

Agreed. Basically some form of "I am taking my toys and going home" Waaaaa

Time for SCA to fire up the lawsuit machine

 

[D-Queued]

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 FoxxyBrown, you appear to have won the most replies award with this.

Bottom line, much of the evidence is already known.

Yes, USADA appears to have the ability to strip him of his TdF and other palmares during the period in question.

Arguably, though, the most interesting potential result is how far can they go?

That is not a question about what Lance wants or argues, as this issue could be confirmed or not by CAS if it gets that far.

Dave.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Agreed. Basically some form of "I am taking my toys and going home" Waaaaa

Time for SCA to fire up the lawsuit machine

Yes!!
Keep it coming....
Juggling is fun to watch

 

[MacRoadie]

Who would choose this and why?

If they are painted in the media as being part of some anti-Lance conspiracy, some may want to make all the facts public to show that their motivation wasn't driven by some kind of hater, taxpayer money-wasting vendetta...

 

[D-Queued]

<Snip>

...

This leaves only challenge (1). As the Court stated at the hearing, and has alluded to above, the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern. Indeed, but for two facts, the Court might be inclined to find USADA's charging letter was a violation of due process, and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder. First, it would likely be of no practical effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later,
only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA's counsel represented to the Court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration, in accordance with routine procedure. The Court takes counsel at his word.


With the understanding Armstrong has received all the process he is due at this time, and will receive adequate notification of the charges against him in time to prepare a defense, the Court rejects Armstrong's first challenge.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes Armstrong agreed to arbitrate with USADA, and its arbitration rules are sufficient, if applied reasonably, to satisfy due process. Whether USADA will attempt to force Armstrong to arbitration against USA Cycling's will, whether the USADA arbitrators will apply the rules reasonably if the matter does proceed to arbitration, and whether Armstrong will actually receive a fair hearing, are questions that remain to be answered; but what is certain is that this Court cannot interfere, contrary to both the will of Congress and Armstrong's agreement to arbitrate, on the basis of a speculative injury. Armstrong's claims are therefore dismissed.

<Snip>.

This appears to be rather brilliant on the Judge's behalf. Moreover, it is odd that anyone has interpreted this as critical of USADA in any way.

The Judge had to directly address the Complaint. He does so, and by expressing "serious constitutional concern". ooooooh! aaaaaah!

Then with just five little words, blows the Armstrong argument into to a thousand pieces: "Indeed, but for two facts"

aka, except for the frikkin obvious...

Perhaps I am missing something, but this appears to be Judge Sparks making sure that his judgement leaves no grounds for appeal.

It is a body slam on Lance, couched as a concern about USADA.

"Indeed, but for two facts..."

Beautiful. My favorite part. Argument shattered.

Dave.

 

[Briant_Gumble]

Hi FoxxyBrown, you appear to have won the most replies award with this.

Bottom line, much of the evidence is already known.

Yes, USADA appears to have the ability to strip him of his TdF and other palmares during the period in question.

Arguably, though, the most interesting potential result is how far can they go?

That is not a question about what Lance wants or argues, as this issue could be confirmed or not by CAS if it gets that far.

Dave.

I was under the impression that if Armstrong refuses to arbitrate then they will strip him of all seven. I don't see how he could deny arbitration but take it to CAS complaining that USADA had ignored the statute of limitations

 

[Trailzz]

Agreed. Basically some form of "I am taking my toys and going home" Waaaaa

Time for SCA to fire up the lawsuit machine

The SCA lawsuit will be settled in 2 seconds flat to make that problem go away

 

[MacRoadie]

The Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to determine Armstrong's Due Process claims, so it dismissed them. The question of whether Due Process can be brought up after the arbitration/sanction process is completed was undecided. The question of whether Armstrong was entitled to Due Process was undecided. The question of whether USADA was acting as a state actor (needed for Due Process) was undecided.

Why, then, on page 2, does he write:

The Court finds: (1) Armstrong's due process claims lack merit; and (2) the Court lacks jurisdiction over Armstrong's remaining claims..."

Why make the distinction? Why does he not simply state that the Court lacks jurisdiction over ALL (or ANY) of Armstrong's claims?

Further, why does he specifically say that they "lack merit"? Why say anything beyond the Court's lack of jurisdiction?

And again, while not trying to be argumentative, you specifically stated that the judge neither accepted nor rejected the due process claim (your words), yet the order very clearly reads:

"The Court rejects Armstrong's due process claims, to the extent that they challenge USADA's arbitration procedures".

Once again, it doesn't say "The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to rule on Armstrong's due process claims, to the extent that they challenge USADA's arbitration procedures."

The Court then goes on to provide 4 pages of written analysis and support for it's belief that the USADA procedure WILL afford Armstrong due process protection, and that due process would ONLY be revisited IF USDA fails to follow it's own procedure and the representations made to the Court.

Also, wasn't the whole meat of Armstrong's due process claim related to the USADA arbitration procedure?

 

[Kender]

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

dont know about him but i was reading this forum for 3 years or so before i finally decided to sign up

 

[Kender]

Who would choose this and why?

they're likely to get sanctioned anyway so why not?