USADA - Armstrong

[hrotha]

Is it not then a win win situation? If they sue, it brings Lance into a court room? Giving further opportunities for fact to be aired?

Threatening to sue is easy. Actually suing, not so much.

 

[QuickStepper]

I don´t wanna disturb the party, but wasn´t it a pyrrhic victory?

The UCI will not strip him of his titles.
The evidence will not be aired.

So what did we gain??

Well, reading his press release and the article in USA Today about the letter from his lawyers threatening to sue if USADA imposes sanctions, all I can say is......that was.......weird and not what I would have anticipated. Oh well.

So on to the next chapter. The USADA will, presumably issue a letter of sanctions. The questoin remains, can USADA make public the details of why they are going to issue sanctions? In other words, can USADA issue a detailed letter which will publicly get out the details that many here want to see published, or are they prohibited by varioius rules (e.g., WADA Code, their own USADA Protocols, etc.) from doing so? Right now, I'm not so sure, but let's look:

1. First, I think we no longer need be concerned at all with the AAA Rules. I find nothing in them which governs what the parties can and can't do if one party refuses to participate in the process.

2. WADA Code: This is where I think the "meat" is in answering the question of what USADA can and can't say publicly. First, I think we need to understand just exactly what it is Armstrong has done, and I think WADA Code Section 8.3 describes it and describes what the consquences are:

8.3 Waiver of Hearing
The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Athlete’s or other Person’s failure to challenge an Anti-Doping Organization’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred within the specific time period provided in the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules. Where no hearing occurs, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management
responsibility shall submit to the Persons described in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

The "Persons" described in Article 13.2.3 who get to see this "reasoned decision" explaining whatever action USADA will take are essentially those persons who are entitled to appeal the decision to CAS and the federation (USAC) the anti-doping authorities of the athlete's nationality (USADA), the international federation (UCI), the IOC, and the international anti-doping authority (WADA). Among those NOT listed though are the public or the press.

But the WADA Code does speak directly to what information may and may not be disclosed to the public concerning a doping violation. Article 14 of the WADA Code essentially provides that all information, other than the athlete's name has to remain confidential and may not be disclosed to anyone other than the "Persons" identified above (e.g., the other national, international and affiliated anti-doping organizations).

The WADA Code does have this specific provision regarding what can be disclosed after a hearing and/or after a hearing is waived:

14.2.2
No later than twenty (20) days after it has been determined in a hearing in accordance with
Article 8 that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred, or such hearing has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not been timely challenged, the Anti- Doping Organization responsible for results management must publicly report the disposition of the anti-doping matter including the sport, the anti-doping rule violated, the name of the Athlete or other Person committing the violation, the Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method involved and the Consequences imposed.. . . "

And then there is also this:

14.2.5
No Anti-Doping Organization. . . or official. . . shall publicly comment on the specific facts of a
pending case (as opposed to general description of process and science) except in response to public comments attributed to the Athlete, other Person or their representatives

I think it's safe to conclude from the above WADA Code provisions that all USADA will be able to announce, on their own directly, is, reading 14.2.2 literally, that a cyclist named Lance Armstrong committed one or more doping violations along with others and the particular methods employed in committing such violations. I do not think that USADA can release testimony publicly or documents, nor any detailed version of the events. And if they do, I think they will run afoul of Rule 14.2.5 and could face some unanticipated issues.

Reading Armstrong's public statement it's also clear that nothing he wrote in that statement (or rather more likely, nothing written for him) comes right out and denies doping. Likewise, there's no admission either. Thus, I think USADA really is sort of hamstrung by the WADA Code provisions in terms of what they can and can't release publicly.

This is just my take on this and of course, I've been wrong about a lot of stuff concerning what I thought Armstrong would do or what he should do, but I think I'm right this time that USADA and WADA will be limited in what they can and cannot say about whatever sanction they determine to impose, and any attempt they make to cross over the line is just going to be more fodder for either Armstrong's legal team to make a bunch of noise, or for the UCI to further suggest that they have disagreements with USADA.

I suppose on one or more levels most of us here would like to know the details, the specifics and what the testimony of the 10-12 teammates and associates has been and what it would have been had the hearings gone forward, but I don't think it's going to come out, at least not unless one or more of those 10-12 people makes public their own statements, and I have no idea what the chances are of that happening. Tyler and Floyd, well, we know what they've said. Hincapie would have been interesting, but I don't think his statements are ever going to see the light of day now. Same with Leipheimer, Zabriskie, etc. Vaughters will probably also now curtail his public commentary as well. The Andreus? We also know what they've said, so I don't think that's a mystery. But I don't think USADA can release the contents of the detailed "reasoned decision" that they have to transmit to the athlete or the "Persons" described in 13.2.3 who (other than the athlete) also have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the information sent to them by the anti-doping organization that makes the findings.

I know many are not going to like this analysis, but that's my take on it. I have not read the entire WADA Code from front to back, but I think these are the operative provisions that govern the situation in which USADA and Armstrong now find themselves given his decision to waive the hearing and refusal to participate.

And I also think that this is what his attorney's letter to USADA was also about, and it clearly takes a shot across the bow of USADA's ship, letting them know that if they violate the rule on limited public disclosure, they'll be in for yet more litigation. Of course, if USADA did decide to violate the rule, I'm not sure what Armstrong's damages would be, since he's going to receive the toughest penalty USADA can mete out, i.e., loss of all titles and a complete ban on further competition.

I still also think it's going to be more interesting to see what ASO and UCI do and whether they fall in line with the sanctions that will be announced by USADA or whether they will engage in a fight. Given that last press statement by UCI, the one issued earlier this week in which UCI said it was not going to further contest the jurisdiction of USADA in this matter, I think UCI is going to be bound to follow the sanctions.....but as we all know, nothing as yet prevented UCI from changing its position 180 degrees, and based on the letter from Amrstrong's attorney, this may still be far from over.

 

[Turner29]

Where does Armstrong file suit?

The warning by his lawyer sounded more like something that would be sent for potential libel.

Suits can also be easily dismissed. These were simply hollow words from a desperate attorney.

LA would have a much better chance at suing 60 Minutes and Tyler Hamilton. Did that happen? NO.

 

[TheEnoculator]

Anyone who calls Armstrong a martyr seriously needs professional help. You don't need 20/20 vision to see Armstrong destroyed cycling in more ways than imaginable.

 

[WinterRider]

For all those who were slagging off Anna zimmerman's predictions, I think it is worth pointing out that she was right.

Good job Anna!

Although I'm not sure that they will file the threatened lawsuit after the sanctions are announced.

 

[Parrot23]

Tim Herman has stated that Armstrong will sue if USADA releases any information, which will then open up discovery and really open the flood gates. Of course, the LAST thing team Dopestrong wants is Armstrong under oath in a witness chair in a courtroom.

I very much hope so.

At all costs, seems Pharmstrong wants to avoid a public airing of the evidence in a U.S. context, particularly credible first person testimony against him. It threatens his carefully cultivated, money-making brand.

Time for "good old" Georgie H. to own up to the truth. I want to see the former teammates who suddenly ("mysteriously" lol) demurred from Olympic selection testify at some point. That, Lance desperately wants to avoid.

He can't sue the living daylights out of multiple former teammates.

 

[ÅSBJÖRN BENKT]

Jens wrote.something cryptic about kloeden being happy with the news. Is this a possibility? I thought it would just be - no winner.

it's an absurdity. USADA has ensured division in the sport for years to come. i think there will be a lot of backlash on why they had to go so far back. UCI and pros won't recognise it.

even armstrong's critics feeling empty tonight.

 

[ÅSBJÖRN BENKT]

I very much hope so.

At all costs, seems Pharmstrong wants to avoid a public airing of the evidence in a U.S. context, particularly credible first person testimony against him. It threatens his carefully cultivated, money-making brand.

Time for "good old" Georgie H. (what a joke) to own up to the truth. I want to see the former teammates who suddenly ("mysteriously" lol) demurred from Olympic selection testify at some point. That Lance desperately wants not to happen.

He can't sue the living daylights out of multiple former teammates.

doubt hincapie will talk about anything for many years.

 

[86TDFWinner]

So what happened in 91-? He decided to race clean? No, GL showed GT talent at a very early age. That can't be said of the EPO generation of cyclists. Try again.

Lol, when will folks learn?

Guys been retired for 18 yrs, last win was 22 yrs ago, yet in that time, NO: REPORT/former teammate/coach/ANYONE has come forward w/ANY sort of "proof/evidence" to show he.has. Please post ANY CREDIBLE source.that claims.otherwise?

(birds chirp)..........

 

[Turner29]

QuickStepper -- great work. There is some gray area here so we may not get to see what we want to see, right away.

It will leak out though.

 

[tofino]

Face the facts

Besides the drama and PR war in the upcoming days.

The only reason people are posting is so they can be post number 10,000

 

[thehog]

Sastre now has one more win than Armstrong!!

 

[Turner29]

For all those who were slagging off Anna zimmerman's predictions, I think it is worth pointing out that she was right.

Good job Anna!

Although I'm not sure that they will file the threatened lawsuit after the sanctions are announced.

I never slagged her prediction. In fact, I said about a month ago that LA would not agree to arbitration.

All I said about her is that she does not understand all the facts.

 

[jackwolf]

Sastre now has one more win than Armstrong!!

And Contador two more.

 

[PosterBill]

Well, reading his press release and the article in USA Today about the letter from his lawyers threatening to sue if USADA imposes sanctions, all I can say is......that was.......weird and not what I would have anticipated. Oh well.

So on to the next chapter. The USADA will, presumably issue a letter of sanctions. The questoin remains, can USADA make public the details of why they are going to issue sanctions? In other words, can USADA issue a detailed letter which will publicly get out the details that many here want to see published, or are they prohibited by varioius rules (e.g., WADA Code, their own USADA Protocols, etc.) from doing so? Right now, I'm not so sure, but let's look:

1. First, I think we no longer need be concerned at all with the AAA Rules. I find nothing in them which governs what the parties can and can't do if one party refuses to participate in the process.

2. WADA Code: This is where I think the "meat" is in answering the question of what USADA can and can't say publicly. First, I think we need to understand just exactly what it is Armstrong has done, and I think WADA Code Section 8.3 describes it and describes what the consquences are:



The "Persons" described in Article 13.2.3 who get to see this "reasoned decision" explaining whatever action USADA will take are essentially those persons who are entitled to appeal the decision to CAS and the federation (USAC) the anti-doping authorities of the athlete's nationality (USADA), the international federation (UCI), the IOC, and the international anti-doping authority (WADA). Among those NOT listed though are the public or the press.

But the WADA Code does speak directly to what information may and may not be disclosed to the public concerning a doping violation. Article 14 of the WADA Code essentially provides that all information, other than the athlete's name has to remain confidential and may not be disclosed to anyone other than the "Persons" identified above (e.g., the other national, international and affiliated anti-doping organizations).

The WADA Code does have this specific provision regarding what can be disclosed after a hearing and/or after a hearing is waived:



And then there is also this:



I think it's safe to conclude from the above WADA Code provisions that all USADA will be able to announce, on their own directly, is, reading 14.2.2 literally, that a cyclist named Lance Armstrong committed one or more doping violations along with others and the particular methods employed in committing such violations. I do not think that USADA can release testimony publicly or documents, nor any detailed version of the events. And if they do, I think they will run afoul of Rule 14.2.5 and could face some unanticipated issues.

Reading Armstrong's public statement it's also clear that nothing he wrote in that statement (or rather more likely, nothing written for him) comes right out and denies doping. Likewise, there's no admission either. Thus, I think USADA really is sort of hamstrung by the WADA Code provisions in terms of what they can and can't release publicly.

This is just my take on this and of course, I've been wrong about a lot of stuff concerning what I thought Armstrong would do or what he should do, but I think I'm right this time that USADA and WADA will be limited in what they can and cannot say about whatever sanction they determine to impose, and any attempt they make to cross over the line is just going to be more fodder for either Armstrong's legal team to make a bunch of noise, or for the UCI to further suggest that they have disagreements with USADA.

I suppose on one or more levels most of us here would like to know the details, the specifics and what the testimony of the 10-12 teammates and associates has been and what it would have been had the hearings gone forward, but I don't think it's going to come out, at least not unless one or more of those 10-12 people makes public their own statements, and I have no idea what the chances are of that happening. Tyler and Floyd, well, we know what they've said. Hincapie would have been interesting, but I don't think his statements are ever going to see the light of day now. Same with Leipheimer, Zabriskie, etc. Vaughters will probably also now curtail his public commentary as well. The Andreus? We also know what they've said, so I don't think that's a mystery. But I don't think USADA can release the contents of the detailed "reasoned decision" that they have to transmit to the athlete or the "Persons" described in 13.2.3 who (other than the athlete) also have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the information sent to them by the anti-doping organization that makes the findings.

I know many are not going to like this analysis, but that's my take on it. I have not read the entire WADA Code from front to back, but I think these are the operative provisions that govern the situation in which USADA and Armstrong now find themselves given his decision to waive the hearing and refusal to participate.

And I also think that this is what his attorney's letter to USADA was also about, and it clearly takes a shot across the bow of USADA's ship, letting them know that if they violate the rule on limited public disclosure, they'll be in for yet more litigation. Of course, if USADA did decide to violate the rule, I'm not sure what Armstrong's damages would be, since he's going to receive the toughest penalty USADA can mete out, i.e., loss of all titles and a complete ban on further competition.

I still also think it's going to be more interesting to see what ASO and UCI do and whether they fall in line with the sanctions that will be announced by USADA or whether they will engage in a fight. Given that last press statement by UCI, the one issued earlier this week in which UCI said it was not going to further contest the jurisdiction of USADA in this matter, I think UCI is going to be bound to follow the sanctions.....but as we all know, nothing as yet prevented UCI from changing its position 180 degrees, and based on the letter from Amrstrong's attorney, this may still be far from over.

That's kind of a bummer if true. I say this because Armstrong's camp does a halfway decent job of controlling the message and the media. They also have the power and money to do this. I've always said that Hincapie would have delivered the fatal blow to armstrong. His testimony would have been bullet proof.

 

[Huckleberry]

[

"Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities. This October, my Foundation will celebrate 15 years of service to cancer survivors and the milestone of raising nearly $500 million."

****** bag.....

 

[Parrot23]

doubt hincapie will talk about anything for many years.

I just hope he's forced to in a court proceeding to do so at some point. No more of this coy dancing around by him in public.

 

[thehog]

And Contador two more.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...vbWFpbnxueWRuZG9jc3xneDo0NWQ1MWMzMmE3MWU0NThl

Henman's letter to USADA.

They're still claiming innocence.

 

[BroDeal]

That's kind of a bummer if true. I say this because Armstrong's camp does a halfway decent job of controlling the message and the media. They also have the power and money to do this. I've always said that Hincapie would have delivered the fatal blow to armstrong. His testimony would have been bullet proof.

It might be why Armstrong's lawyer's warning sounds like a warning for potential libel.

 

[MarkvW]

Anyone who calls Armstrong a martyr seriously needs professional help. You don't need 20/20 vision to see Armstrong destroyed cycling in more ways than imaginable.

When it comes to destroying cycling, Lance bombed rubble.

 

[The Hitch]

Olano will get Armstrong's bronze from the TT in the Sydney Olympics in 2000.

Anyone want to tweet lance with the"congratulations olano on your 1st Olympic medal"

 

[eyemgh]

Details...

I just pre-ordered Tyler's book from Amazon. It will arrive on release day, Sept. 18th. Giddy.

M

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

OK, thank you.
If USADA strips him of the 7 TdF titels, Armstrong can´t do anything about it.

Now we need a postman who has nothing to lose in life, so he can accidentialy open the letter adressed to Armstrong, and it just find it´s way to some news station. That would be perfect...

Well, reading his press release and the article in USA Today about the letter from his lawyers threatening to sue if USADA imposes sanctions, all I can say is......that was.......weird and not what I would have anticipated. Oh well.

So on to the next chapter. The USADA will, presumably issue a letter of sanctions. The questoin remains, can USADA make public the details of why they are going to issue sanctions? In other words, can USADA issue a detailed letter which will publicly get out the details that many here want to see published, or are they prohibited by varioius rules (e.g., WADA Code, their own USADA Protocols, etc.) from doing so? Right now, I'm not so sure, but let's look:

1. First, I think we no longer need be concerned at all with the AAA Rules. I find nothing in them which governs what the parties can and can't do if one party refuses to participate in the process.

2. WADA Code: This is where I think the "meat" is in answering the question of what USADA can and can't say publicly. First, I think we need to understand just exactly what it is Armstrong has done, and I think WADA Code Section 8.3 describes it and describes what the consquences are:



The "Persons" described in Article 13.2.3 who get to see this "reasoned decision" explaining whatever action USADA will take are essentially those persons who are entitled to appeal the decision to CAS and the federation (USAC) the anti-doping authorities of the athlete's nationality (USADA), the international federation (UCI), the IOC, and the international anti-doping authority (WADA). Among those NOT listed though are the public or the press.

But the WADA Code does speak directly to what information may and may not be disclosed to the public concerning a doping violation. Article 14 of the WADA Code essentially provides that all information, other than the athlete's name has to remain confidential and may not be disclosed to anyone other than the "Persons" identified above (e.g., the other national, international and affiliated anti-doping organizations).

The WADA Code does have this specific provision regarding what can be disclosed after a hearing and/or after a hearing is waived:



And then there is also this:



I think it's safe to conclude from the above WADA Code provisions that all USADA will be able to announce, on their own directly, is, reading 14.2.2 literally, that a cyclist named Lance Armstrong committed one or more doping violations along with others and the particular methods employed in committing such violations. I do not think that USADA can release testimony publicly or documents, nor any detailed version of the events. And if they do, I think they will run afoul of Rule 14.2.5 and could face some unanticipated issues.

Reading Armstrong's public statement it's also clear that nothing he wrote in that statement (or rather more likely, nothing written for him) comes right out and denies doping. Likewise, there's no admission either. Thus, I think USADA really is sort of hamstrung by the WADA Code provisions in terms of what they can and can't release publicly.

This is just my take on this and of course, I've been wrong about a lot of stuff concerning what I thought Armstrong would do or what he should do, but I think I'm right this time that USADA and WADA will be limited in what they can and cannot say about whatever sanction they determine to impose, and any attempt they make to cross over the line is just going to be more fodder for either Armstrong's legal team to make a bunch of noise, or for the UCI to further suggest that they have disagreements with USADA.

I suppose on one or more levels most of us here would like to know the details, the specifics and what the testimony of the 10-12 teammates and associates has been and what it would have been had the hearings gone forward, but I don't think it's going to come out, at least not unless one or more of those 10-12 people makes public their own statements, and I have no idea what the chances are of that happening. Tyler and Floyd, well, we know what they've said. Hincapie would have been interesting, but I don't think his statements are ever going to see the light of day now. Same with Leipheimer, Zabriskie, etc. Vaughters will probably also now curtail his public commentary as well. The Andreus? We also know what they've said, so I don't think that's a mystery. But I don't think USADA can release the contents of the detailed "reasoned decision" that they have to transmit to the athlete or the "Persons" described in 13.2.3 who (other than the athlete) also have an obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the information sent to them by the anti-doping organization that makes the findings.

I know many are not going to like this analysis, but that's my take on it. I have not read the entire WADA Code from front to back, but I think these are the operative provisions that govern the situation in which USADA and Armstrong now find themselves given his decision to waive the hearing and refusal to participate.

And I also think that this is what his attorney's letter to USADA was also about, and it clearly takes a shot across the bow of USADA's ship, letting them know that if they violate the rule on limited public disclosure, they'll be in for yet more litigation. Of course, if USADA did decide to violate the rule, I'm not sure what Armstrong's damages would be, since he's going to receive the toughest penalty USADA can mete out, i.e., loss of all titles and a complete ban on further competition.

I still also think it's going to be more interesting to see what ASO and UCI do and whether they fall in line with the sanctions that will be announced by USADA or whether they will engage in a fight. Given that last press statement by UCI, the one issued earlier this week in which UCI said it was not going to further contest the jurisdiction of USADA in this matter, I think UCI is going to be bound to follow the sanctions.....but as we all know, nothing as yet prevented UCI from changing its position 180 degrees, and based on the letter from Amrstrong's attorney, this may still be far from over.

 

[BroDeal]

This has to be good for sales of Hamilton's book. I hope he lays everything bare.

 

[Turner29]

Huckleberry -- you need to Photoshop that image a bit to be more representative of Lance Armstrong. The, erm, package is too big...