I don't believe Lance Armstrong doped and never will
Comments
-
Greg66 wrote:When LA ducked the arbitration process, he didn't plead guilty. He didn't admit the claims against him. He said "I'm not playing". You may think that's as much as admission of guilt as anything else. You might ultimately be right. But it's not a formal admission, and that's an important difference.
So the USADA could have trudged on as above, proved its case in LA's absence, and waved around a reasoned award. It didn't though. Instead, it dropped the whole process and said "we've won!".
I knew you'd get there in the end, but that's the whole reason behind my two threads. I figured you would be able to articulate it better than me.
People shouted me down and called me an idiot because I bought the Lance media machine whereas they unknowingly bought the USDA one.
But the point still stands. Lastly I always had the impression that the UCI wanted Lance strung up and hung, the fact that they aren't all over this and pre-empting a ban has me thinking otherwise.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
vermin wrote:I haven't read them properly at all but, just skimming through USADA docs, it looks like positive lab test results provide for strict liability. The athlete has the right to demand a hearing but, if he fails to do so in the face of positive tests, is it not just a matter of rubber stamping and passing sentence?
That's my understanding too; although as I also understand it, the positive lab test has to be conducted under whatever the WADA protocols are. Given that the USADA's case has been trailed as relying on ten witnesses, if it also has the "positive" tests that the French newspapers are reporting, I would not be surprised to learn that they are positives outside WADA's protocols, and not therefore strictly admissible to nail LA on the strict liability approach you've outlined.
No doubt we shall see in due course...0 -
The UCI have bent over backwards to avoid Armstrong being caught. They have covered up positives, "lost" B samples - oh and received a donation of $125,000 from guess who?DonDaddyD wrote:... Lastly I always had the impression that the UCI wanted Lance strung up and hung, the fact that they aren't all over this and pre-empting a ban has me thinking otherwise.0 -
Greg66 wrote:vermin wrote:I haven't read them properly at all but, just skimming through USADA docs, it looks like positive lab test results provide for strict liability. The athlete has the right to demand a hearing but, if he fails to do so in the face of positive tests, is it not just a matter of rubber stamping and passing sentence?
That's my understanding too; although as I also understand it, the positive lab test has to be conducted under whatever the WADA protocols are. Given that the USADA's case has been trailed as relying on ten witnesses, if it also has the "positive" tests that the French newspapers are reporting, I would not be surprised to learn that they are positives outside WADA's protocols, and not therefore strictly admissible to nail LA on the strict liability approach you've outlined.
No doubt we shall see in due course...
The evidence is coming out in mid October - though I imagine we'll get a good idea of what that all is when Hamilton's book is out on Wednesday.0 -
Hypothesising that USADA does actually hold a WADA protocol test: LA would be far more fearful of such a positive test becoming public than of the hearsay evidence of a bunch of people whose evidence is already tainted by their own convictions/admissions. If USADA wished to expose the whole mob, wouldn't it be tactically astute to withhold publicity of the positive test and, as you put it, trail the case on all the other evidence which, in itself, exposes the greater issues, confident that LA would fold pre-hearing to keep the positive test private.0
-
Did not think about that...SteppenHerring wrote:
The UCI have bent over backwards to avoid Armstrong being caught. They have covered up positives, "lost" B samples - oh and received a donation of $125,000 from guess who?DonDaddyD wrote:... Lastly I always had the impression that the UCI wanted Lance strung up and hung, the fact that they aren't all over this and pre-empting a ban has me thinking otherwise.
It's a messy case, in truth it's hard not to believe that Armstrong didn't cheat if everyone else was doing so and he somehow managed to be better than drugged up athletes with double their natural blood cell counts. But something doesn't sit right about the process and I still don't think it achieves much for cycling as a whole.
I'm watching one of the greatest stage race battles I've seen in a long time (La Vuelta) but most anyone who talks to me about cycling mentions this case.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:
Oh come on. Either you're being wilfully naive or you're just sparring for an argument* now. Without due process, you don't get confidence in the result.
*Did someone say trolling? No, I thought not.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
Because due process needs to take place, regardless of who's involved, otherwise we're effectively reduced to trial by media.
For example, before a judgment or award issued by the court or tribunal in country A can be enforced in country B, there is often a need for that award or judgment to be reasoned, or to be issued after a full hearing on the merits even though thre respondent/defendant didn't participate in the process. That doesn't appear to have happened here.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
cjcp wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
Because due process needs to take place, regardless of who's involved, otherwise we're effectively reduced to trial by media.
For example, before a judgment or award issued by the court or tribunal in country A can be enforced in country B, there is often a need for that award or judgment to be reasoned, or to be issued after a full hearing on the merits even though thre respondent/defendant didn't participate in the process. That doesn't appear to have happened here.
I think that is as much Armstrong's fault as USADA's.
It seems pretty clear to anyone following it that Armstrong is gunning for a trial by media since an actual trial is going to end badly for him.0 -
Greg66 wrote:
Oh come on. Either you're being wilfully naive or you're just sparring for an argument* now. Without due process, you don't get confidence in the result.
I'm no lawyer, nor do I pretend to have much knowledge on the matter.
From my perspective, the way USADA have behaved, beyond the timing which I am intrigued about, has been pretty solid.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:cjcp wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:
Because due process needs to take place, regardless of who's involved, otherwise we're effectively reduced to trial by media.
For example, before a judgment or award issued by the court or tribunal in country A can be enforced in country B, there is often a need for that award or judgment to be reasoned, or to be issued after a full hearing on the merits even though thre respondent/defendant didn't participate in the process. That doesn't appear to have happened here.
I think that is as much Armstrong's fault as USADA's.
It seems pretty clear to anyone following it that Armstrong is gunning for a trial by media since an actual trial is going to end badly for him.
The need for due process is paramount, regardless of any spoiling tactics the respondent/defendant chooses to employ to frustrate the other side.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
Could one of the lawyers here define 'Due Process'?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Greg66 wrote:
Oh come on. Either you're being wilfully naive or you're just sparring for an argument* now. Without due process, you don't get confidence in the result.
I'm no lawyer, nor do I pretend to have much knowledge on the matter.
From my perspective, the way USADA have behaved, beyond the timing which I am intrigued about, has been pretty solid.
Not sure it's all that solid. Tygart's ego is almost as big as Lance's.
Either way, I doubt this case will ever be closed neatly.- 2023 Vielo V+1
- 2022 Canyon Aeroad CFR
- 2020 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX
- Strava
- On the Strand
- Crown Stables
0 -
I, too, am not a lawyer, but it looks to me as if USADA are following due process to the letter. If it appears to anyone that they aren't, then it just goes to show that LA's FUD / trial by media strategy is being at least partially successful.0
-
cjcp wrote:due process needs to take place
As above, if a positive test exists then the requirement for due process would be satisfied in the lab; the arbitral process would be a rubber-stamping exercise. Do we know for certain that no such WADA ratified test exists? Does WADA have a duty to publicise such findings?0 -
It seems to me that, very shortly after (as in, the very next day) the deadline for filing a defence expires, judgment on the consequences of this is duly passed. I don't see how that can amount to a substantive hearing or detailed consideration of the merits. It's got something of the Judge Dredds about.
A reasoned award setting out their findings would be a much more satisfactory way forward.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
JonGinge wrote:If these positive tests were from 1999 (ie before WADA was instituted) who then has authority? Can the WADA code be applied retro-actively?
I vaguely remember something about 5 years or something.
Also, those '99 tests were not according to the WADA rules. Something about not enough urine to test, or too long ago.
French are saying there's two '04 and '05 tests.
Also, they're saying the blood values of his blood passport during his comeback, which is within the last 2 or 3 years are indicative of doping.0 -
This conjecture is why I believe they needed to hold up the evidence and say this is what it is and - on the basis of past cases - this is the appropriate punnishment.
They need to be clear about the who, what and why they plan to strip Lance of his cycling career (which will be the effect of the proposed punnishment).
At present there is no real proven evidence that Lance actually doped. What there is is an accusation and Lance saying he won't fight it because he is tired.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Havent read all this thread as ICBA to be honest but this is an interesting opinion in response to Phil Liggett's recent submission to the debate (which i also havent seen)FCN = 40
-
@RC
Ok, not actually read/heard the french tv stuff, just heard 'early career positives'. I took that as pre- or early TdF hegemony.
I'd seen that some had thought the Armstrong 2.0 blood values were odd but, hey, passport violations are quite hard to prove0 -
-
DonDaddyD wrote:This conjecture is why I believe they needed to hold up the evidence and say this is what it is and - on the basis of past cases - this is the appropriate punnishment.
They need to be clear about the who, what and why they plan to strip Lance of his cycling career (which will be the effect of the proposed punnishment).
At present there is no real proven evidence IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN that Lance actually doped. What there is is an accusation and Lance saying he won't fight it because he is tired.
FTFY0 -
*shrugs* I thought their witnesses were from USPS days rather than Astana. *nips off to look up the astana 2009-2010 lineup... ah, Leipheimer, Horner, Popo?*Rick Chasey wrote:0 -
I reckon Levi ratted, not the other two. Was surprised he left Radioshack, then his form has been very patchy this year (although he did have a bad accident to be fair). Wish they'd just get the information out there, all a bit cloak and dagger, its like they do this stuff on purpose to entertain the tinfoil hat internet brigade!0
-
-
Greg66 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I'm no lawyer but surely because the case involves 5 people, not one, and one of them, the hog, is going for arbitration, surely the process of arbitration will still occur. Only with 1 defendant, the hog, rather than the full 5, since the other 4 aren't going for it?
As an aside, does anti-doping process have to follow the criminal process? I wasn't aware it did.
First point: as I understand it, there are five cases against five people. I don't know whether there was ever a plan to hear them all together; perhaps there was if a conspiracy is alleged.
If so, then a lawyer looking at this would say "So, LA and some others has dropped out. JB is still in and fighting though. No problem. We proceed against JB and prove our case against the other four, in their absence, at the hearing against JB". All the odder, therefore, to stop, claim victory and dispense the punishment.
Second point: the anti-doping process doesn't have to follow the criminal process, but I didn't say that it did. The criminal thing was just intended to illustrate the "doing a runner" point. Because it has pretty severe consequences though, it will follow a fairly strict procedure (eg I noticed according to WADC, the burden of proof is higher than the civil standard of balance of probabilities, although lower than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt).
If, as seems to be the case, anti-doping is done by arbitration, it has to follow the procedures that the USADA and its athletes agree should govern arbitrations. Now it is possible that there is a short cut in those procedures that allows the USADA to do what it's done, but I haven't found it. If it's there, then there's nothing wrong with what's been done so far: that was the procedure that LA signed up to. Whether it's there is the question I have though.
You make some good points.
Referring to "USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing":
http://www.usada.org/files/pdfs/usada-protocol.pdf
Regarding the arbitration process itself:-
So, if an arbitration hearing occurs, USADA still has to submit its evidence for the arbitraror(s) to hear and make their award.Annex D
R-26. Arbitration in the Absence of a Party or Representative
Unless the law provides to the contrary, the arbitration may proceed in the absence of any party or representative who, after due notice, fails to be present or fails to obtain a postponement. An award shall not be made solely on the default of a party. The arbitrator shall require the party who is present to submit such evidence as the arbitrator may require for the making of an award.
However, it's also possible for an athlete/person to be sanctioned without an arbitration hearing occurring (ie prior to the above circumstances), if the athlete/person fails to contest USADA's intended sanctions, as per the following:-11. Results Management/ Anti-Doping Review Board Track
e. Within ten (10) days following the date of such notice, the Athlete or other Person must notify USADA in writing if he or she desires a hearing to contest the sanction sought by USADA. The Athlete or other Person shall be entitled to a five (5) day extension if requested within such ten (10) day period. If the sanction is not contested in writing within such ten (10) or fifteen (15) day period, then the sanction shall be communicated by USADA to the Athlete or other Person, USOC, the applicable NGB, IF and WADA and thereafter imposed by the NGB.
It seems that this (11.e) is exactly what USADA has done: imposed their sanctions once LA decided not to contest (ie. forgoing his right to the arbitration hearing). If instead LA had contested their evidence, forcing an arbitration hearing but then not turned up, USADA would then have had to present their evidence to the hearing. By failing to contest USADA's sanctions, though, LA chose not to progress things to that (potential) point.
From this document, therefore, it appears that USADA followed the process their protocol stipulates.0 -
rdt wrote:However, it's also possible for an athlete/person to be sanctioned without an arbitration hearing occurring (ie prior to the above circumstances), if the athlete/person fails to contest USADA's intended sanctions, as per the following:-11. Results Management/ Anti-Doping Review Board Track
e. Within ten (10) days following the date of such notice, the Athlete or other Person must notify USADA in writing if he or she desires a hearing to contest the sanction sought by USADA. The Athlete or other Person shall be entitled to a five (5) day extension if requested within such ten (10) day period. If the sanction is not contested in writing within such ten (10) or fifteen (15) day period, then the sanction shall be communicated by USADA to the Athlete or other Person, USOC, the applicable NGB, IF and WADA and thereafter imposed by the NGB.
It seems that this (11.e) is exactly what USADA has done: imposed their sanctions once LA decided not to contest (ie. forgoing his right to the arbitration hearing). If instead LA had contested their evidence, forcing an arbitration hearing but then not turned up, USADA would then have had to present their evidence to the hearing. By failing to contest USADA's sanctions, though, LA chose not to progress things to that (potential) point.
From this document, therefore, it appears that USADA followed the process their protocol stipulates.
Thank you for that. It does look from that, and the USADA's press release, that it has followed its due process. The earlier provisions of cl 11, specifically the last sentence of cl 11 b and cl 11 c stipulate that the USADA has to put its evidence in the hands of an independent review board that it appoints. That looks to be a "threshold" check - it considers everything on paper and its processes remain confidential whichever way it jumps.
The review board then recommends to the USADA what it should do (go ahead or back down): cl 11d, and then the USADA notifies the athlete of the charges by a notice in writing. It is that notice that cl 11e refers to in its opening line.
The press release here http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-armstrong8242012 (6th para) confirms that the independent review body process was undertaken, and the notice to LA followed its report.
So, due process followed.
That still leaves the underlying point: the witness evidence on which the case is apparently based has not been tested in the sense of the witnesses having been questioned in a tribunal, and the case has not been proved in a formal legal sense.0
