USADA files doping charges against Lance

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

dougzz wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Thanks for your opinion. Was just curious of Iain's opinion as he's been arguing for the banning of big tex but we need to see who he cheated to win 7 TDFs. Nobody anywhere near the GC group. Victimless crime in terms of who lost their right to a TDF win. The livestrong stuff is pretty corrupt and disgusting though so I see where anger comes from

No way victimless. How about all the people that never had a career because they wouldn't get on the program. All the people that didn't want to but felt pressed into it by others. I'd say remove the titles and simply leave it at that, the results were meaningless in a historical sense. If you following cycling you have a view, if you don't why would you care who won the 1999 TdF. The ASO could basically state that every winner of the TdF from 1991 to 2010 was in some doubt as to their freedom from doping, and that all the results had to be viewed in that context.

If you can't reassign the wins to a lower placed rider then it's fair to ask who got cheated. No GC rider was clean unless stupid sadly. Doping in that era was a victimless crime. But to repeat, agree livestong is a disgusting self serving creation so I agree with a lot of the anger on here and so I understand why many people wish to see LA gone.

There are a huge amount of people who got cheated, even if we assume every single rider in the peloton was doped.

1) Riders who couldn't get a contract because riding clean they couldn't compete with the dopers
2) Fans who saw the sport's credibility destroyed

Armstrong isn't responsible for that all by himself, but he had a hand in it. Any sportsman that significantly raises the bar also sets the methodology for success. Track teams round the world are looking at what Brailsford has done and how they can emulate it. Road teams round the world looked at what Lance was doing (and yes, Big Mig before that).

As for who Lance may have personally cheated, well anyone that ever gave him any money for starters.

There's also the last question about results management. The famous "level playing field" (we know it isn't really, due to physiological differences in responses to doping) was even less level if LA was allowed to sweep +ve tests under the carpet.

But for me, I just want this all to come out in the wash, because it needs to be done to clean up cycling now. I don't actually care what happens to his results, though I'll admit to having a bit of schadenfreude if he lost them.

hommelbier

Another 7 days until the decision about jurisdiction is made. Can we now expect that USADA will provide some of its evidence to back up its case even if it is redacted in some way.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-delays-ruling-in-armstrong-and-usada-case

iainf72

hommelbier wrote:

Another 7 days until the decision about jurisdiction is made. Can we now expect that USADA will provide some of its evidence to back up its case even if it is redacted in some way.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-delays-ruling-in-armstrong-and-usada-case

Maybe. But I doubt it somehow. What was interesting was Judge Sparks asked 3 times why he's looking at this, shouldn't they just go through the arbitration process.

sherer

iainf72 wrote:

hommelbier wrote:

Another 7 days until the decision about jurisdiction is made. Can we now expect that USADA will provide some of its evidence to back up its case even if it is redacted in some way.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-delays-ruling-in-armstrong-and-usada-case

Maybe. But I doubt it somehow. What was interesting was Judge Sparks asked 3 times why he's looking at this, shouldn't they just go through the arbitration process.

surely if the judge asked that three times doesn't that already give him the answer he needs to close this case ?

I know he said the USADA charge sheet didn't have much details but then USADA have said if they put details in then LA will intimidate any witnesses they have.

Has for names of those that have cheated how about Bassons and Simeoni for starters

iainf72

sherer wrote:

Has for names of those that have cheated how about Bassons and Simeoni for starters

?

Confused. Bassons spoke out about what was happening in 1999 and suffered for it. Simeoni used Ferrari as prepatore, doped, then provided evidence against Ferrari

They were both victimised by the system to some extent.

sherer

iainf72 wrote:

sherer wrote:

Has for names of those that have cheated how about Bassons and Simeoni for starters

?

Confused. Bassons spoke out about what was happening in 1999 and suffered for it. Simeoni used Ferrari as prepatore, doped, then provided evidence against Ferrari

They were both victimised by the system to some extent.

wrote that quickly and mucked up the grammer. I meant those were names of those that had been cheated by LA

Jez mon

Deleted, old post(!)

dave_1

Just done some reading, I think Judge Sparks is a glimmer of hope for Lance now..wouldn't surprise me if temporary injunction is granted to stop USADA

nathancom

Dave_1 wrote:

Just done some reading, I think Judge Sparks is a glimmer of hope for Lance now..wouldn't surprise me if temporary injunction is granted to stop USADA

There isn't any prospect of an injunction at this point, Sparks will either find for the plaintiff or not. USADA have given LA an extension to choose whether to go to arbitration anyway until Sparks issues his ruling. LA may appeal the decision if it goes against him but I don't see USADA having too many issues since the question of jurisdiction is very narrow so questions such as the charge document shouldn't really have any bearing on the case. If LA wins this case then he will most likely be in the clear for good unfortunately, however Sparks would be hobbling the USADA beyond the whole LA case and that might also have a bearing on his final judgement.

dave_1

nathancom wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Just done some reading, I think Judge Sparks is a glimmer of hope for Lance now..wouldn't surprise me if temporary injunction is granted to stop USADA

There isn't any prospect of an injunction at this point, Sparks will either find for the plaintiff or not. USADA have given LA an extension to choose whether to go to arbitration anyway until Sparks issues his ruling. LA may appeal the decision if it goes against him but I don't see USADA having too many issues since the question of jurisdiction is very narrow so questions such as the charge document shouldn't really have any bearing on the case. If LA wins this case then he will most likely be in the clear for good unfortunately, however Sparks would be hobbling the USADA beyond the whole LA case and that might also have a bearing on his final judgement.

I've found this the best independent description of what went on in the courtroom yesterday and USADA must be worried..http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/armstro ... --spt.html

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- A federal judge had tough questions for U.S. anti-doping officials about the fairness of their effort to prove seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong cheated, grilling them at length in a hearing Friday.
But U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks also asked attorneys for the cyclist why the federal court should step into an arbitration process already set up to handle doping cases in sports.
In a 2 1/2-hour session, Sparks criticized USADA about the vagueness of its charges and wondered whether Armstrong would get a legitimate chance to defend himself against allegations that he used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career.
Sparks also questioned USADA officials about why they don't turn their evidence over to the International Cycling Union, which has tried to wrest control of the Armstrong case from USADA in recent days.
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency accuses Armstrong of using steroids and blood boosters to win the Tour from 1999-2005, and leading a complex doping program on his teams. If found guilty, he faces a lifetime ban from the sport and could be stripped of his titles.
Armstrong, who denies doping, filed the lawsuit now before Sparks, asking the federal court to block USADA's case. He claims the agency's arbitration process and rules of evidence violate his constitutional right to due process.
Sparks did not consider the evidence against Armstrong and made no ruling Friday. The judge gave the lawyers another week to file more legal briefs and suggested he will rule before the Aug. 23 deadline USADA imposed on Armstrong to either take the case to arbitration or accept sanctions.
Sparks gave no indication how he would rule, but he was clearly troubled by the vagueness of USADA's charging letter to Armstrong and the agency's decision to withhold key information, including the names of witnesses and what they told investigators at this stage.
''No case filed in this court or any court in the United States would go to trial'' under similar circumstances, Sparks said.
USADA general counsel Bill Bock countered that Armstrong's case isn't a matter for the legal courts, but is subject to the established rules of sports-doping violations and arbitration. Also, USADA has withheld witness names from Armstrong because of fears of intimidation, he said.
Bock said the arbitration system is fair under the law and that the panel appointed in Armstrong's case likely would order all evidence to be shared with him as the case proceeds.
USADA says Armstrong agreed to the arbitration process when he obtained his professional cycling license through USA Cycling. Bock encouraged Sparks to keep the courts out of the matter.
''(Armstrong) is asking the court to decide matters of international sports law,'' Bock said.
The hearing also focused on which sports agency should handle the case. Armstrong and the International Cycling Union allege the Europe-based UCI should have jurisdiction because the charges cover evidence first sent to USA Cycling, which is sanctioned by UCI, and includes drug tests collected by UCI in 2009 and 2010.
''There's something under the current when UCI says 'This is our case, USADA step back,' and USADA says 'Not on your life,''' Sparks said.
USADA officials say UCI's rules, as well as the U.S Olympic Committee and the World Anti-Doping Agency give the American agency jurisdiction.
Sparks admitted being confused about jurisdiction, noting the agencies seem to have overlapping rules that attempt to preempt each other.
But he also noted that the arbitrators can determine jurisdiction and that Armstrong would be allowed to appeal any rulings to the Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration for Sport.
''Why would they not rule for you if it's so clear?'' Sparks asked Armstrong attorney Tim Herman. ''Where do I have jurisdiction when you can litigate in arbitration?''
The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency charged Armstrong in June, about four months after a federal grand jury investigation of the cyclist ended four months earlier without any indictments.
Doping charges were also levied against five others associated with his teams during his Tour de France victories. Three cases are still pending and two doctors who worked with the teams have been issued lifetime bans.
USADA officials say they have up to 10 former Armstrong teammates and associates willing to testify against the former lead rider, and blood samples from 2009-2010 that are ''fully consistent'' with doping.
Armstrong, who was not at the hearing, says he has undergone more than 500 drug tests without testing positive. He retired from cycling in 2011.
''Mr. Armstrong agreed to play by the same rules that apply to every other athlete and we believe he should not be allowed to create a new set of rules that apply only to him,'' Travis Tygart, chief executive of USADA said in a prepared statement. ''From the beginning our investigation has been about ridding sport from anyone in the system that uses their power or influence to encourage or assist athletes in using dangerous performance-enhancing drugs.''

emadden

There is a danger that Lance could win the case strictly on procedural grounds, and Sparks may try to "make up for it" by writing a stern "obiter dictum" (i.e. side note) admonishing the defendants for getting the procedure wrong in an otherwise "open and shut case".

In other words, the Judge may not be able to hold against Lance using the letter of the law, but could still state that Lance iwould have otherwise been found guilty as hell - but any such obiter would have no legal standing or merit, unfortunately.

It is the equivalent of a judge saying "my hands are tied on this and I have to leave the guy go, but if my hands weren't tied by this procedural cock-up, this is what i think... he was a manic doper and the USADA were a bit silly to misinterpret the procedural rules"...


But im hoping Im wrong on this

No_Ta_Doctor

Well waht would it mean if LA won this case? Would it then go to the UCI, as the UCI are claiming it should?

There are a load of riders and staff that have unburdened themselves to USADA. Even if they didn't get LA into arbitration those testimonies are going to come out sooner or later.

dennisn

emadden wrote:

There is a danger that Lance could win the case.....

It is the equivalent of a judge saying "my hands are tied on this and I have to leave the guy go, but if my hands weren't tied by this procedural cock-up, this is what i think... he was a manic doper and the USADA were a bit silly to misinterpret the procedural rules"...

But im hoping Im wrong on this

Just how dangerous would it be. Do I need to build an underground shelter? :roll:

Also, I believe you are wrong. The Judge would never refer to the defendant as a "manic doper".

iainf72

No tA Doctor wrote:

Well waht would it mean if LA won this case? Would it then go to the UCI, as the UCI are claiming it should?

There are a load of riders and staff that have unburdened themselves to USADA. Even if they didn't get LA into arbitration those testimonies are going to come out sooner or later.

Nothing really. It would just make the whole thing take a lot longer. The same thing is going to happen regardless of what happpens. Whoever loses will appeal.

- WADA have confirmed USADA are the right org to be dealing with this
- Sparks has asked why they can't just do the arbitration thing
- This whole "I've not seen the evidence" thing is nonsense. When does that happen ever in the real world? They say "how do you plead", you tell 'em, then they present their evidence. Simples.

If USADA were stopped doing this case, it effectively puts the USA at risk of being excluded from the olympics. They signed up to certain requirements and if they don't meet those, no olympics. It would take a lot to get there but there are more powerful forces at work here.

DeadCalm

iainf72 wrote:

- This whole "I've not seen the evidence" thing is nonsense. When does that happen ever in the real world? They say "how do you plead", you tell 'em, then they present their evidence. Simples.

Not true. In most legal jurisdictions based on the British adversarial system there are rules of discovery meaning that the defendant will be told all details of the charges against him before the trial. As I understand it, this is Armstrong's point and USADA are saying that these don't apply and there are separate rules which Armstrong as signed up to.

iainf72 wrote:

If USADA were stopped doing this case, it effectively puts the USA at risk of being excluded from the olympics.

Unlikely I would have thought. More likely that cycling may be excluded.

jerry3571

Seems a shame not to open up the case to what could have been collusion between the UCI and LA/Bruyneel in respect to doping. It would be nice to find an answer to who was texting USPS/Discovery prior to any dope test and who was responsible for hiding the results of the alleged positive dope test in the Tour de Suisse. The present Case seems like getting LA for the sake of it. I personally think the stink wafts in to this certain building in Switzerland.


Entrance of UCI headquarters at Aigle

iainf72

DeadCalm wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If USADA were stopped doing this case, it effectively puts the USA at risk of being excluded from the olympics.

Unlikely I would have thought. More likely that cycling may be excluded.

Worth a read

http://www.examiner.com/article/latest- ... pic-status

DeadCalm

iainf72 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

If USADA were stopped doing this case, it effectively puts the USA at risk of being excluded from the olympics.

Unlikely I would have thought. More likely that cycling may be excluded.

Worth a read

http://www.examiner.com/article/latest- ... pic-status

Thanks. A good read. I agree that the USA in theory could be excluded from the Olympics as a result of the decision but the financial realities mean that just isn't going to happen. Cycling on the other hand...

dave_1

Judge Sparks looks partial

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/arm ... 241m9.html
Armstrong judge questions delay in anti-doping agency's action


Faces an "impossible and unlawful choice" ... Lance Armstrong.



The federal judge considering Lance Armstrong's request to block the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency from forcing the cyclist into arbitration questioned why it took so long to bring claims about use of performance-enhancing drugs.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, Texas, said yesterday the agency's notice to Armstrong about doping violations lacks specific allegations that would allow Armstrong to mount a "meaningful response." He said five people accused of doping violations along with Armstrong aren't American or U.S. competitors and questioned lawyers for the agency, whose allegations go back 12 years, why it waited so long.

"I'm not a fisher person, but I do know the smell of bad fish," Sparks said. "Were you so busy, year after year?"

Bill Bock, an attorney for the USADA, told Sparks the agency "alleged a lot of doping in a very organized fashion over a long period of time." The USADA doesn't have any positive drug tests for Armstrong or the other individuals targeted for doping violations, he said.
Advertisement

Armstrong, seeking to protect his seven Tour de France titles, contends the USDA has no authority to require him to accept arbitration and its proceedings are rigged.

The doping violations Armstrong faces will be clearly set out as the arbitration process the organization uses to resolve doping allegations gets under way, Bock said. Armstrong has no reason to fear there will be any lack of precise evidence, witnesses and allegations against him, he said.

An Aug. 13 deadline for Armstrong to agree to binding arbitration was extended to Aug. 23 to give the judge time to rule on Armstrong's suit, said Annie Skinner, a USADA spokeswoman.

Sparks gave both sides one week to submit further arguments in writing before he issues his ruling.

'Unlawful Choice'

Armstrong said he faces "an impossible and unlawful choice: either accept a lifetime ban and the loss of his competitive achievements or endure a rigged process where he would be certain to lose," according to court papers.

The USADA notified Armstrong in June that he, three doctors and two officials from the cyclist's former U.S. Postal Service racing team were accused of using and trafficking prohibited drugs, Armstrong said in court filings.

The same month, the USADA said an independent panel of arbitrators would decide the matter.

Armstrong denies using banned substances and said he has never failed a drug test.

Olympics

The cyclist doesn't have a contract or agreements with the USADA, the national anti-doping organization for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sports in the U.S., his attorneys said in court filings. Armstrong signed a license application with the Union Cycliste International, an international cycling federation, during the years in question in the USADA case, they said.

The federation has exclusive jurisdiction over drug tests, disciplinary actions and other matters covered by the USADA's claims, Armstrong said in court papers.

"We have obligations to UCI," Tim Herman, Armstrong's attorney, told Sparks.

Participating in the USADA arbitration would be a breach of the cyclists' obligations to UCI, he said.

Referring to USADA's charging process, Herman said, "The Christians had a better record against the lions than athletes do over there

Vino'sGhost

The question is, which side is most tranquillo?

iainf72

I like the way the press and Lance's lawyers are ignoring what the head of WADA said.

mercsport

iainf72 wrote:

I like the way the press and Lance's lawyers are ignoring what the head of WADA said.

Indeed. I had to rummage about to remind myself, so worth a link: http://goo.gl/LnuOk

dennisn

Dave_1 wrote:

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, Texas, said yesterday the agency's notice to Armstrong about doping violations lacks specific allegations that would allow Armstrong to mount a "meaningful response." He said five people accused of doping violations along with Armstrong aren't American or U.S. competitors and questioned lawyers for the agency, whose allegations go back 12 years, why it waited so long.

"I'm not a fisher person, but I do know the smell of bad fish," Sparks said. "Were you so busy, year after year?"

After reaing the whole thing this is what struck me. "why it waited so long" and "so busy, year after year?" :? :?

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

After reaing the whole thing this is what struck me. "why it waited so long" and "so busy, year after year?" :? :?

Do you want me to tell you or is it pointless?

sherer

I think the reason for the wait is that no one would come clean. It was only after Landis started talking that the federal enquiry started. Once the feds got involved with USADA sitting in on the case that all the ex team mates started to talk properly.

Before it was just rumours and with the LA intimidation no case could get anywhere.

TheBigBean

LA's defence seems to be that he faces two choices:
(i) plead guilty
(ii) go to trial and be found guilty.

Those are the standard choices for guilty people, this is not exceptional.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

After reaing the whole thing this is what struck me. "why it waited so long" and "so busy, year after year?" :? :?

Do you want me to tell you or is it pointless?

What??? I can't say that those were the comments that struck me most in reading that?
How does that work on a forum? The rest of the post just seemed blah, blah, and more blah blah. Sorry about your luck but that's what I thought. :P

derbygrimpeur

TheBigBean wrote:

LA's defence seems to be that he faces two choices:
(i) plead guilty
(ii) go to trial and be found guilty.

Those are the standard choices for guilty people, this is not exceptional.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

After reaing the whole thing this is what struck me. "why it waited so long" and "so busy, year after year?" :? :?

Do you want me to tell you or is it pointless?

What??? I can't say that those were the comments that struck me most in reading that?
How does that work on a forum? The rest of the post just seemed blah, blah, and more blah blah. Sorry about your luck but that's what I thought. :P

Of course you can. But they don't really strike me as I know why, as do most people who follow the case. There's no mystery about it.

ratherbeintobago

TheBigBean wrote:

LA's defence seems to be that he faces two choices:
(i) plead guilty
(ii) go to trial and be found guilty.

I'm sure it's been said before, but attacking the process (rather than going to court) isn't exactly the best way to proclaim one's innocence.

Andy