USADA will investigate

[MarkvW]

Well, yes, of course I have read the Hellebuyck decision. That decision is what I base my assertion on.

First, the rule on SOL. "No action may be commenced against an athlete..for an anti-doping rule violation...unless such action is commenced within 8 years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred." [Note to MarkW, the operative word here is "action", not "investigation".

So then the question becomes: what constitutes "action". The Hellebuyck decision gives us the answer in 7.4 (read the bolded statement there) through 7.7. The charging letter is when action commenced, and the Panel explicitly rejects that action had commenced when the USADA submitted allegations to the Review Board or even earlier, as the USADA had argued. The notion that action commenced when an investigation was launched is completely out of the question.

Hellebuyck was a track guy, governed by the IAAF. Armstrong is a bike guy, governed by the UCI. The UCI provisions clearly and unambiguously say "investigation." Are you suggesting that the UCI limitation period for antidoping is irrelevant to Armstrong's situation? If so, why?

 

[thehog]

Well, yes, of course I have read the Hellebuyck decision. That decision is what I base my assertion on.

First, the rule on SOL. "No action may be commenced against an athlete..for an anti-doping rule violation...unless such action is commenced within 8 years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred." [Note to MarkW, the operative word here is "action", not "investigation".

So then the question becomes: what constitutes "action". The Hellebuyck decision gives us the answer in 7.4 (read the bolded statement there) through 7.7. The charging letter is when action commenced, and the Panel explicitly rejects that action had commenced when the USADA submitted allegations to the Review Board or even earlier, as the USADA had argued. The notion that action commenced when an investigation was launched is completely out of the question.

If you close your eyes hard enough it all might be true. Just don't open your eyes. Don't.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Mewmew, I hate to burst your bubble but Jan was a big time doper. Banned from 2 TdF's for doping. The teams he rode for were busted time and time again. Big Time Doping. Look, I am a hugh Jan fan. Love Jan. But I am not living in denial fcol.

Althoug Jan is so much nicer than Lance. If they decide the winner of a TdF based on niceness - Jan is THE man. Big Mig too.

I never said that Jan did not dope. You were trying to assert that 'evidence'
showed that he and Telekom etc were much dirtier than wonderguy...and that is simply not true.
You're trying to obfuscate the argument and I am not going to squabble over your loony semantics.

It's the smokescreen effect that you fall back on. ...and there is no evidence that anyone or any team was dirtier than good ol' Postal.
fcol
waa you are hurting Jan's feelings

 

[mewmewmew13]

btw Polish or anyone ...the Jan does not have a huge money-hiding foundation that is based on the premise of his cleanliness

 

[KingsMountain]

Hellebuyck was a track guy, governed by the IAAF. Armstrong is a bike guy, governed by the UCI. The UCI provisions clearly and unambiguously say "investigation." Are you suggesting that the UCI limitation period for antidoping is irrelevant to Armstrong's situation? If so, why?

The UCI regulations (368) do say: "Any request for investigation or for disciplinary action and any act of investigation or disciplinary action in relation with the violation shall be considered as commencement of the action for the purpose of this article."
However, the above statement (especially, "any request for investigation") is so broad that it will not stand up in arbitration, IMO. And 369, referring to the UCI rules in general contains, in part, " However, these Anti-Doping Rules having been adopted pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Code they shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with applicable provisions of the Code."
I expect the precedent set in the Hellebuyck case to be followed.

thehog:
My opinion about the SOL is not what I'm wishing for. In fact I think it is ironic that the Hellebuyck decision puts both Landis and Hamilton at risk of further sanctions by the USADA, because they subsequently admitted to having lied before the arbitrators, but IMO restricts the window for sanctioning Armstrong. It does seem that the anti-doping rules and policies foster continued denial rather than admission, even after an athlete has partially admitted.

 

[thehog]

btw Polish or anyone ...the Jan does not have a huge money-hiding foundation that is based on the premise of his cleanliness

Jan was never allowed to see lab directors or make "donations" to the UCI. So if anything T-Mobile were at a disadvantaged.

Also Lance the omertà breaker had Mayo dropped into WADA pile to stop him from getting too good.

Yep USPS were the cleanest of the dirty.

Oh and the advance warning on tests. Telekom never got those. Just USPS.

 

[thehog]

thehog:
My opinion about the SOL is not what I'm wishing for. In fact I think it is ironic that the Hellebuyck decision puts both Landis and Hamilton at risk of further sanctions by the USADA, because they subsequently admitted to having lied before the arbitrators, but IMO restricts the window for sanctioning Armstrong. It does seem that the anti-doping rules and policies foster continued denial rather than admission, even after an athlete has partially admitted.

Go for it! I hope you get everything you wish for. I really do. I hope USADA take down Landis and Hamilton for another 25 years. Perfect. I think the both of them would be completely disturbed by the fact if that happened. They have so much faith in cycing and would be totally shocked if that occurred.

Most of all I want Lance to get away with it. That would be great. Just what cycling needs even if he kinda half admitted it in a 12 year old sorta whimpy way.

Yep what we need now is someone to get out the rulebook and tell us Lance has nothing to answer for. Thats the spirit old chap.

Crikey. Prefer to listen to Bob Roll than this dribble.

 

[MarkvW]

The UCI regulations (368) do say: "Any request for investigation or for disciplinary action and any act of investigation or disciplinary action in relation with the violation shall be considered as commencement of the action for the purpose of this article."
However, the above statement (especially, "any request for investigation") is so broad that it will not stand up in arbitration, IMO. And 369, referring to the UCI rules in general contains, in part, " However, these Anti-Doping Rules having been adopted pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Code they shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with applicable provisions of the Code."
I expect the precedent set in the Hellebuyck case to be followed.

thehog:
My opinion about the SOL is not what I'm wishing for. In fact I think it is ironic that the Hellebuyck decision puts both Landis and Hamilton at risk of further sanctions by the USADA, because they subsequently admitted to having lied before the arbitrators, but IMO restricts the window for sanctioning Armstrong. It does seem that the anti-doping rules and policies foster continued denial rather than admission, even after an athlete has partially admitted.

Thanks.

It makes it difficult to dream up a scenario that would support an antidoping action.

 

[MarkvW]

Go for it! I hope you get everything you wish for. I really do. I hope USADA take down Landis and Hamilton for another 25 years. Perfect. I think the both of them would be completely disturbed by the fact if that happened. They have so much faith in cycing and would be totally shocked if that occurred.

Most of all I want Lance to get away with it. That would be great. Just what cycling needs even if he kinda half admitted it in a 12 year old sorta whimpy way.

Yep what we need now is someone to get out the rulebook and tell us Lance has nothing to answer for. Thats the spirit old chap.

Crikey. Prefer to listen to Bob Roll than this dribble.

A classic example of concrete thinking. Thanks Hog!

 

[thehog]

A classic example of concrete thinking. Thanks Hog!

When Lance pays you & I back for It's not about the Bike he'll be sweet with me.

I'll be his friend on Twitter with you.

When he hands back his Tour titles that will restore some of my faith.

 

[MarkvW]

When Lance pays you & I back for It's not about the Bike he'll be sweet with me.

I'll be his friend on Twitter with you.

When he hands back his Tour titles that will restore some of my faith.

You are presented with an analysis of a problem and you (a) don't analyze the problem for yourself; and (b) don't intelligently criticize the analysis provided. All you do is go all anti-fanboy and rant at people by accusing them of being Lance-fanboys.

Why not think the issue through for yourself and discuss it?

 

[KingsMountain]

Thanks.
It makes it difficult to dream up a scenario that would support an antidoping action.

Well, 2004 and later is still in play, and Hincapie was on the 2004 team with Armstrong, so he may have said something that would allow a non-analytic positive. Plus, there may be others besides Hincapie who would or did testify to the USADA.
I assume that the USADA would prefer to invalidate everything, but they should be willing to strip just 2004/2005 if that is all that can be had.

 

[MacRoadie]

The UCI regulations (368) do say: "Any request for investigation or for disciplinary action and any act of investigation or disciplinary action in relation with the violation shall be considered as commencement of the action for the purpose of this article."
However, the above statement (especially, "any request for investigation") is so broad that it will not stand up in arbitration, IMO. And 369, referring to the UCI rules in general contains, in part, " However, these Anti-Doping Rules having been adopted pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Code they shall be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with applicable provisions of the Code."
I expect the precedent set in the Hellebuyck case to be followed.

thehog:
My opinion about the SOL is not what I'm wishing for. In fact I think it is ironic that the Hellebuyck decision puts both Landis and Hamilton at risk of further sanctions by the USADA, because they subsequently admitted to having lied before the arbitrators, but IMO restricts the window for sanctioning Armstrong. It does seem that the anti-doping rules and policies foster continued denial rather than admission, even after an athlete has partially admitted.

Yet another classic Clinic case (hey, that's alliteration!) of "You guys are wrong, it doesn't say that. You're wrong, wrong, wrong. Show me where it says that. Ok, maybe it does say that, but IT'S wrong, wrong, wrong..."

 

[thehog]

You are presented with an analysis of a problem and you (a) don't analyze the problem for yourself; and (b) don't intelligently criticize the analysis provided. All you do is go all anti-fanboy and rant at people by accusing them of being Lance-fanboys.

Why not think the issue through for yourself and discuss it?

I will once Lance pays back his victims. I was hoping the Federal Government would assist this cause but not. Lance skated. That's ok. It cost him a lot of money, infact all of his money and most of his self respect to do so.

Perhaps he might call up the SCA and apologize? Say sorry about the million dollars? You know I don't care anymore so I'll keep your cash, hope you don't mind.

He might call up David Walsh and say sorry I sued but I'll hang onto the settlement. Spent it on lawyers. I don't care anymore.

He might call up Betsy and say sorry I pressured you to lie but you should have just done it.

Maybe call up Greg LeMond and say hey mate you and I are brothers! 3 wins a piece.

Sorry my dear friend. You can't analyze a stinking turd. No matter how much you slice it up it still looks and stinks like a turd.

 

[hrotha]

Oh and the advance warning on tests. Telekom never got those. Just USPS.

And Kelme.

 

[henryg]

My feeling is that the public are exhausted of all of this.

The public is barely aware of any of this. Of course if the USADA winds up publishing all the testimony of teammates that they recieved and sanctioning him -then there will be a wave of lurid press reports in the mainstream media and LA will again be in the spotlight. Just not in a way he will like.

 

[thehog]

On LA's twitter this appeared:

Quote:
Great to hear that @usada is investigating some of @si's claims. I look forward to being vindicated.

Anyone heard about this? And what are your opinions about this, if it does turn out to be true.

Funny how things change.

 

[BroDeal]

Here is a theory. If Armstrong were to contest any USADA action then it would go to an arbitration proceeding. He would have to testify under oath. His criminal attorneys have told him that cannot perjure himself without risking criminal charges, which could be proved with information gathered by the federal investigation. He is in a position where he cannot contest any charges.

 

[MarkvW]

Here is a theory. If Armstrong were to contest any USADA action then it would go to an arbitration proceeding. He would have to testify under oath. His criminal attorneys have told him that cannot perjure himself without risking criminal charges, which could be proved with information gathered by the federal investigation. He is in a position where he cannot contest any charges.

Not a bad idea.

 

[thehog]

Here is a theory. If Armstrong were to contest any USADA action then it would go to an arbitration proceeding. He would have to testify under oath. His criminal attorneys have told him that cannot perjure himself without risking criminal charges, which could be proved with information gathered by the federal investigation. He is in a position where he cannot contest any charges.

I like your thinking. I knew he wouldn't say anything unless it benefits him personally in some manner.

 

[BotanyBay]

Here is a theory. If Armstrong were to contest any USADA action then it would go to an arbitration proceeding. He would have to testify under oath. His criminal attorneys have told him that cannot perjure himself without risking criminal charges, which could be proved with information gathered by the federal investigation. He is in a position where he cannot contest any charges.

These kinds of proceedings being outside the realm of civil and criminal court... Does a lie told under oath in a USADA arbitration hearing actually count as a potential criminal perjury issue?

Looks like Lance was given a choice of death or...

 

[DirtyWorks]

Here is a theory. If Armstrong were to contest any USADA action then it would go to an arbitration proceeding. He would have to testify under oath. His criminal attorneys have told him that cannot perjure himself without risking criminal charges, which could be proved with information gathered by the federal investigation. He is in a position where he cannot contest any charges.

Inside the USADA, he can't lie. He can conveniently "forget" to buy some time rework the facts presented by USADA into some B.S. story so that he's not lying to the point of perjury. These are world class cheats, so I expect even better than that from Team Wonderboy. This sets up some drama about which lying liar gets thrown in front of the bus in Team Wonderboy.

 

[Race Radio]

Half time is over kids. Second half is about to start. Better start warming up the obfuscation machine.

 

[TechnicalDescent]

Half time is over kids. Second half is about to start. Better start warming up the obfuscation machine.

You mean you're pleased the Giro is over so you can get everyone focusing on Armstrong again? That grand tour thing does get to be an annoying distraction.

 

[Race Radio]

You mean you're pleased the Giro is over so you can get everyone focusing on Armstrong again? That grand tour thing does get to be an annoying distraction.

It is not my fault your hero is in trouble.