USADA - Armstrong

[DomesticDomestique]

Fake Floyd Landis ‏@FakeFloydLandis

No ****! RT @TheRaceRadio: Next few days will be craptastic......

This is really not looking good right now. Are we about to see a political intervention similar to the fed investigation?

Is the UCI/USAC going to come down hard on some witness, maybe JV?

Is FakeFloydLandis, Floyds current handle of choice?

Lots of questions, would be nice if RaceRadio cleared things up. I've got $100 on "Lance facing ANY consequence for his action" by the stage one of 2014 tour. When RR says stuff like this, I think I need to find my checkbook.

 

[Muriel]

The most interesting issues I think from USADA's perspective, assuming the case actually proceeds to arbitration, are going to be how they respond to the jurisdiction and SOL arguments that I and some others anticipate Armstrong will assert. I think they will play it straight, and rely on the same principles that have been discussed throughout this thread, i.e., the Hellebuyck exception and the claim of a conspiracy.

The issue I'm struggling with is the USADA sanctioning prior to 2004. I can see that they can bring the evidence in, courtesy of Hellebuyk and also - what was the expression you used? - setting the frame (??), so I don't see an SOL issue per se BUT I'm not sure about titles being stripped pre the WADA code being adopted. Some here have said it can happen but I've not been convinced, so I wouldn't be surprised if Armstrong's team addressed that issue (would you call it scope?).

As it happens, I'm not concerned about titles being stripped or otherwise. I'd be content to see a lifetime ban and the evidence being in the public arena, but that's another issue.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

We are approaching post number 10.000 in the next few days.
Can i kindly ask the mods or Mr. Benson what the member who posts the 10.000th comment is awarded with?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Is it reasonable to assume(and an almost certainty) that once it comes out that Lance did infact dope, ALL of his sponsors(especially Nike) will jump ship? I can't imagine "Live Strong" will remain a viable company, they'll almost certainly have to shut their doors as well upon that news, or am I incorrect?

Opinions?

 

[mewmewmew13]

We are approaching post number 10.000 in the next few days.
Can i kindly ask the mods or Mr. Benson what the member who posts the 10.000th comment is awarded with?

Job as a mod

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

This is really not looking good right now. Are we about to see a political intervention similar to the fed investigation?

Maybe Team LA has managed to get some traction with the 5th District Court of Appeal more quickly than we would have guessed? (that could put a stranglehold on any USADA proceedings until it is resolved)

 

[Square-pedaller]

we are approaching post number 10.000 in the next few days.
Can i kindly ask ... What the member who posts the 10.000th comment is awarded with?

RSI?

(Extra chars)

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Job as a mod

Uuh, so better not post the anniversary comment.

.... Rsi? :d

What is "rsi"?

 

[Square-pedaller]

What is "rsi"?

Repetitive Strain Injury (from using a mouse too much)

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, I'd like to spend some time thinking about USADA's approach, but honestly, I think their case is really going to be fairly straightforward from everything I've read and heard. They will attempt to present testimony and affidavits from witnesses, some documentary evidence (at least there's some indication they will with respect to the claims that some of Armstrong's 2004 or 2005 testing was "suggestive" of manipulated blood values), and the like.

Firstly, the disputed blood values are from 2009 & 2010.

Overall, though I agree that USADAs case appears straightforward - it really depends on what LA do and how much they contest the case, which I suspect they will with vigor.

The most interesting issues I think from USADA's perspective, assuming the case actually proceeds to arbitration, are going to be how they respond to the jurisdiction and SOL arguments that I and some others anticipate Armstrong will assert. I think they will play it straight, and rely on the same principles that have been discussed throughout this thread, i.e., the Hellebuyck exception and the claim of a conspiracy.

Frankly, I think it's much harder to see where the trouble might lie, other than the "big-ticket" issues, in the USADA's case, and in that respect, it's probably a lot less challenging and less fun to talk about. Armstrong's case, on the other hand, is just so filled with legal issues and challenges that I find it way more interesting to think about. So don't mistake my interest in trying to analyze and deal with issues that I think are more interesting than some others with a bias or slant to one side or the other. As I've said many times, I have no "skin" in this game, and it doesn't matter to me whether Armstrong skates or is fried. Also, don't confuse the fact that I don't share the view that Armstrong's counsel are the idiots or bumbling fools that others here seem to think they are with some sort of alignment, fondness or bias towards them. The USADA has good, competent attorneys also; so far they haven't committed the same procedural gaffes that have occurred on the Armstrong side, but give it time, they will.

In saying that I have no real interest in which side wins or loses though, I will confess that I did read the recent article by Bill Strickland in Bicycling that someone else linked to, and it made me think back to those days when I'd watch the Tour on Versus, the Tour de Trump, and some of the other races where Armstrong and his teammates would just do some amazing stuff. I don't think I was as concious back in those days of the impact or effect that doping was having on the sport, and certainly none of my cycling buddies nor I even gave that stuff any thought. I was not, and am not, a racing cyclist; I do long-distance, endurance events and ride recreationally, about 200 miles per week during the summer months, and doping has never been high on my radar, and maybe that's why I'm more reluctant to want to write screeds about how venal and vile it is for Armstrong and his pals to have doped (assuming they did, and I only know what I've read and heard from others).

I try to present a balanced view, but I fully appreciate why others here in the Clinic may not see it that way and tend to think I may have some tilt toward the Armstrong camp. I don't, and if I've made it appear that way, it was not my intention. But that said, I think I've tried to discuss and present some other points of view that some people here in the Clinic may not be looking at or overlooking. That's all.

I do appreciate your Legal opinions - and I have no problem if you want to bat for either side, in fact I am more interested in how LA and his team would legally fight their case.

But to be clear the blue suggests some bias.

 

[Jeremiah]

Firstly, the disputed blood values are from 2009 & 2010.

Overall, though I agree that USADAs case appears straightforward - it really depends on what LA do and how much they contest the case, which I suspect they will with vigor.



I do appreciate your Legal opinions - and I have no problem if you want to bat for either side, in fact I am more interested in how LA and his team would have legally fight their case.

But to be clear the blue suggests some bias.

good point on the blue...

 

[Kennf1]

Maybe Team LA has managed to get some traction with the 5th District Court of Appeal more quickly than we would have guessed? (that could put a stranglehold on any USADA proceedings until it is resolved)

Nope. As far as we know, no notice of appeal has been filed yet. Until that happens, the 5th Circuit is irrelevant.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave:

Let's not argue the competence of the attorneys any further, ok? Let's just say we disagree.

Second, I wrote I have participated in "hundreds" of commercial arbitrations, not "thousands."

Third, I'm not sure what other case you're referring to.

Fourth, ...

<yes, I did read the entire post>.

1. Agreed

2. Sorry for inflating

3. Floyd

4. Thanks


Floyd's case had more lawyers and law students tuning in than write the LSAT, all with great hope of Wiki-defense legal precedents. Heck, we even had a judge providing us with ongoing commentary (and, in line with our agreement on #1, I will not throw a bone at the judge's competence).

When we finally got to the Arbitration?

All gone in a puff of smoke.

Big on promise, small on delivery. Once the hearing started, everything got really simple and just focused on the doping thing.

Not only does that create a fairly interesting precedent for Lance, but I would even guess that we will end up with exactly the same three arbitrators if Lance chooses this route.

That is why I may only be familiar with one arbitration, but I have the foolish zeal to think it trumps any amount of commercial arbitration experience.

Giant PR campaign, very similar arguments, almost identical actors...

Sure looks like 'Follow your own rules' II.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Well, I'd like to spend some time thinking about USADA's approach, but honestly, I think their case is really going to be fairly straightforward from everything I've read and heard. They will attempt to present testimony and affidavits from witnesses, some documentary evidence (at least there's some indication they will with respect to the claims that some of Armstrong's 2004 or 2005 testing was "suggestive" of manipulated blood values), and the like.

The most interesting issues I think from USADA's perspective, assuming the case actually proceeds to arbitration, are going to be how they respond to the jurisdiction and SOL arguments that I and some others anticipate Armstrong will assert. I think they will play it straight, and rely on the same principles that have been discussed throughout this thread, i.e., the Hellebuyck exception and the claim of a conspiracy.

Frankly, I think it's much harder to see where the trouble might lie, other than the "big-ticket" issues, in the USADA's case, and in that respect, it's probably a lot less challenging and less fun to talk about. Armstrong's case, on the other hand, is just so filled with legal issues and challenges that I find it way more interesting to think about. So don't mistake my interest in trying to analyze and deal with issues that I think are more interesting than some others with a bias or slant to one side or the other. As I've said many times, I have no "skin" in this game, and it doesn't matter to me whether Armstrong skates or is fried. Also, don't confuse the fact that I don't share the view that Armstrong's counsel are the idiots or bumbling fools that others here seem to think they are with some sort of alignment, fondness or bias towards them. The USADA has good, competent attorneys also; so far they haven't committed the same procedural gaffes that have occurred on the Armstrong side, but give it time, they will.

In saying that I have no real interest in which side wins or loses though, I will confess that I did read the recent article by Bill Strickland in Bicycling that someone else linked to, and it made me think back to those days when I'd watch the Tour on Versus, the Tour de Trump, and some of the other races where Armstrong and his teammates would just do some amazing stuff. I don't think I was as concious back in those days of the impact or effect that doping was having on the sport, and certainly none of my cycling buddies nor I even gave that stuff any thought. I was not, and am not, a racing cyclist; I do long-distance, endurance events and ride recreationally, about 200 miles per week during the summer months, and doping has never been high on my radar, and maybe that's why I'm more reluctant to want to write screeds about how venal and vile it is for Armstrong and his pals to have doped (assuming they did, and I only know what I've read and heard from others).

I try to present a balanced view, but I fully appreciate why others here in the Clinic may not see it that way and tend to think I may have some tilt toward the Armstrong camp. I don't, and if I've made it appear that way, it was not my intention. But that said, I think I've tried to discuss and present some other points of view that some people here in the Clinic may not be looking at or overlooking. That's all.

The only bias that I see in your posts is a slight bias toward caution and and against taking an extreme position. (No criticism intended). I appreciate the time and thought that you put into your posts. They definitely stimulate thought and counterbalance the natural tendency for groupthink.

 

[Benotti69]

The only bias that I see in your posts is a slight bias toward caution and and against taking an extreme position. (No criticism intended). I appreciate the time and thought that you put into your posts. They definitely stimulate thought and counterbalance the natural tendency for groupthink.

From a self confessed fan of Armstrong how could you possibly see anything different?

 

[MarkvW]

From a self confessed fan of Armstrong how could you possibly see anything different?

Gosh, all you ever do is insult people, Joe.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Unfortunately it will not only Wonderboy's name in the news.

the absurdity of the US legal system has me puzzled sometimes

Shocking! Perhaps might makes right? Again... I hope there's something left for USADA to do.

 

[python]

It amazes me, how many people so quickly lose faith into what is a classic case of doping but far more egregious, all b/c of a one post on the internet.

And this is despite the most recent legal battle record clearly pointing to Armstrong's royal fraud finally seeing the light of day.

Amazing, truly amazing! I would not be surprised if the majority of those who are ready to flip on just one Internet board post are from America.

We know that Armstrong in his desperation dug some dirt on a usada review board member. Perhaps he found more personal dirt on some usada folks.

Yeah, it means he did not dope

 

[Weapons of @ss Destruction]

We know that Armstrong in his desperation dug some dirt on a usada review board member. Perhaps he found more personal dirt on some usada folks.

Tygart was nabbed doping for his local gran fondo???

 

[hrotha]

It amazes me, how many people so quickly lose faith into what is a classic case of doping but far more egregious, all b/c of a one post on the internet.

And this is despite the most recent legal battle record clearly pointing to Armstrong's royal fraud finally seeing the light of day.

Amazing, truly amazing! I would not be surprised if the majority of those who are ready to flip on just one Internet board post are from America.

We know that Armstrong in his desperation dug some dirt on a usada review board member. Perhaps he found more personal dirt on some usada folks.

Yeah, it means he did not dope

It's understandable. The federal investigation was supposed to be a slam-dunk case and we saw how that worked out. I don't have so much faith in the American justice system to be absolutely sure Armstrong will be done in.

 

[thehog]

Everything is fine in regards to USADA. Tomorrow is D-Day for Lance and nothing will stop that. Nothing.

 

[python]

It's understandable. The federal investigation was supposed to be a slam-dunk case and we saw how that worked out. I don't have so much faith in the American justice system to be absolutely sure Armstrong will be done in.

i would agree except to rephrase you, I have zero faith in the American political system that always employed the otherwise sound judicial system for it's nebulous goals.

The viability of American judicial system to rule on the matters of fact and law was PROVEN by judge sparks, Armstrong's landsman.

 

[DomesticDomestique]

It amazes me, how many people so quickly lose faith into what is a classic case of doping but far more egregious, all b/c of a one post on the internet.

And this is despite the most recent legal battle record clearly pointing to Armstrong's royal fraud finally seeing the light of day.

Amazing, truly amazing! I would not be surprised if the majority of those who are ready to flip on just one Internet board post are from America.

We know that Armstrong in his desperation dug some dirt on a usada review board member. Perhaps he found more personal dirt on some usada folks.

Yeah, it means he did not dope

Yes I am from the US. And I know damn well that if he is "acquitted" by USADA, that it will have nothing to do with "did not dope." But it's also very easy for me to lose faith. For one, RaceRadio seems to be the only true insider on this forum and I put more faith in what he says than anyone else. I also know how corrupt our country can be and how corrupt the entire sport of cycling is. That makes it pretty easy to lose faith when the top source for info says something negative. It takes a lot of momentum to overcome 14 years of corruption and associated resistance from US Politicians, fanboys, USAC, UCI etc. Any loss of momentum could be a big blow.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It's understandable. The federal investigation was supposed to be a slam-dunk case and we saw how that worked out. I don't have so much faith in the American justice system to be absolutely sure Armstrong will be done in.

You can't compare a criminal case with an arbitration. For a criminal case you need withnesses who are clean as a whistle. What do you think a jury in the US will think after an attorney cross examines Floyd Landis, a man who has lied on too many occasions to be believable for Joe Public? That was never a slam dunk and would have been a disaster. Not even mentioning Hamilton and his twin dope story. They would have been slaughtered in court.

This whole thing is about jurisdiction, no more, no less. Armstrong is bound by this jurisdiction from at least 2004 when he signed as an UCI member the WADA code and is bound to it. Wheter they can go further as to 1999 is a whole different ballgame. But that will be up to CAS eventually.

 

[Deagol]

does anyone know what happened to the poster Cimacoppi64 (spelling?) who used to post on this thread quite a bit ?