I don't believe Lance Armstrong doped and never will

No_Ta_Doctor

Greg66 wrote:

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.

Yes, thanks rdt, clears a lot up.

Greg66 - re the case not being proved in a formal legal sense - surely non-contestation of charges - given that this entitles the charging agency to issues sanctions for the charges - must be taken as the legal equivalent of a guilty plea? After all, USADA can't actually summons Armstrong to appear before an arbitration panel, so they have no option of forcing a plea from him. In a court of law (at least some, not all jurisdictions allow it) a no contest of the charges "Nolo contendere" triggers the same outcome as a guilty plea (with a few differences wrt to being able to use the plea in civil cases against the defendant). Armstrong hasn't contested the charges, that's nolo contendere, in a court of law that counts as case proved.

vermin

Equivalent to summary judgement / judgement in default, no? Sounds like due process in English law to me. And a perfectly legitimate and enforceable decision.

greg66_tri_v2.0

No tA Doctor wrote:

Greg66 - re the case not being proved in a formal legal sense - surely non-contestation of charges - given that this entitles the charging agency to issues sanctions for the charges - must be taken as the legal equivalent of a guilty plea? After all, USADA can't actually summons Armstrong to appear before an arbitration panel, so they have no option of forcing a plea from him. In a court of law (at least some, not all jurisdictions allow it) a no contest of the charges "Nolo contendere" triggers the same outcome as a guilty plea (with a few differences wrt to being able to use the plea in civil cases against the defendant). Armstrong hasn't contested the charges, that's nolo contendere, in a court of law that counts as case proved.

Not really sure that's right (this will now get a bit legal - sorry). First, nolo contendere, as I understand it, isn't a guilty plea; nor is it taken as the legal equivalent to a guilty plea (in the sense of constituting an admission). It has the same (practical) effects or outcome as a guilty plea, but that still doesn't mean it is an admission of guilt.

Secondly, so far as common law jurisdictions go (England, Canada, Aus, USA) nolo is hardly recognised. It seems from wiki to be recognised in a handful of US states only. So it's not really a common concept. Given that the USADA process is essentially contract (between it and the athlete) based, I'm not convinced many courts would interpret the contract to include such a relatively obscure concept. This is particularly so when (a) the concept isn't referred to by name in the USADA written materials; and (b) it would have been relatively easy to draft the USADA rules so as to make a refusal to engage a deemed admission by the athlete.

Thirdly, where it does exist, it seems that you have to express opt to plead it (rather than simply sit on your arse, as LA has done).

Fourthly, it seems (again) from wiki that when you make the plea, you usually do so as part of a plea bargain: a process by which the prosecution and defence do a deal as to the punishment which is then presented to the court to implement as a fait accompli (and which the court can't depart from). Pretty obviously, that aspect of the process is missing here.

greg66_tri_v2.0

vermin wrote:

Equivalent to summary judgement / judgement in default, no? Sounds like due process in English law to me. And a perfectly legitimate and enforceable decision.

No. Summary judgment is a contested hearing before an independent tribunal. It's a mini trial for a simple case. Judgment in default is a process by which a defendant fails to abide by a procedural step, is debarred from defending, and the claimant is thereby entitled to go to court and ask for judgment in its favour without having to prove its case.

So the first of these has no parallel under the USADA's procedure. The second is closer conceptually, in that the USADA didn't have to prove its case, but is different in that it didn't have to get an award from an arbitral panel. It just writes its own judgment.

The litigation equivalent of what the USADA rules provide for is (I suppose) a defendant who says "you can't serve those proceedings on me" and then the claimant says "Oh. Ok then. I've won; pay me £x as if I had a judgment against you".

Be that as it may, it's the procedural LA signed up to, so he's stuck with it, whatever one might say about the theoretical rights or wrongs of it. It does, as it seems to me though, retain the inherently unsatisfactory quality that oral evidence of real people has been accepted at face value without questioning. Watch a few witnesses give evidence at trials, and you'll realise why that makes me go "hmm".

One thing that's fairly consistent as I see it is if you hate LA, you tend to either think the whole thing is perfectly fair, or not care whether it is or isn't because the ends justify the means; if you hate the USADA, you regard the whole thing as on the level of a ducking stool.

rolf_f

Greg66 wrote:

Be that as it may, it's the procedural LA signed up to, so he's stuck with it, whatever one might say about the theoretical rights or wrongs of it. It does, as it seems to me though, retain the inherently unsatisfactory quality that oral evidence of real people has been accepted at face value without questioning. Watch a few witnesses give evidence at trials, and you'll realise why that makes me go "hmm".

Indeed. Of course, this is the problem that commonly afflicts another not dissimilar breed to Lance - dictators. Once you fall all those around you put you to the sword as soon as possible to deflect the angry mob from them. It's all well and good ruling by force but it doesn't give you many friends when it goes wrong. Still, hopefully all will go down together if the physical evidence is good enough.

cjcp

vermin wrote:

Equivalent to summary judgement / judgement in default, no? Sounds like due process in English law to me. And a perfectly legitimate and enforceable decision.

The problem with a judgment in default is that it can be set aside in the jurisdiction in which it was issued, and isn't necessarily enforceable in another jurisdiction because it doesn't amount to a decision on the merits, it being a procedural step in reality.

So it would be safer to go down what would be the equivalent of what I think is the Berliner Bank route by proceeding to a hearing on the merits, and examining the witnesses (see Greg's point), if the respondent doesn't participate.

It doesn't look great that the evidence hasn't be released and the process seems to have proceeded in reverse.

greg66_tri_v2.0

vermin wrote:

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.

If the USADA's objective is to prove the conspiracy, a positive WADA protocol test isn't probative of that. So yes, tactically better to trail the oral evidence as the basis of the case.

But... You might then speculate that as to why the USADA went the route it did, rather than proving its case against LA at the contested hearing against JB. One possibility is that the case isn't very strong, and the USADA knows it. So take the bird in the hand while you can.

Although then I do think the WADA protocol test would become be best card in the hand, and be played against LA, which makes me think there is no such card.

No_Ta_Doctor

I think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this is an arbitration case, not a criminal trial. While we might try to find parallels some of the terminology just isn't applicable. LA had 2 options, contest or don't contest. There is no plea, not even guilty. The arbitration would have settled the dispute as to whether LA had been in breach of the internal rules of Olympic sports, as interpreted by usada. No contention should be seen in that light.

DonDaddyD

vermin wrote:

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.

FTFY

But that is just semantics, a known unknown. We know that allegedly their is evidence but we don't know what it is or whether it is or proven to be true (I.e. Bush claiming Iraq had WMDs - he said it so many times and it was repeated that we were so sure). How can we then conclude that he did without any reasonable doubt that he did cheat.

It is Lance's right to choose not to fight the case and that is not an admission of guilt. The onus is still on the USDA to prove he cheated and the UCI to support this.

This takes me back to Linford, they said he did, he said he didn't and just about every single track and field athlete also says he didn't. In actual athletic circles the general consensus is that he didn't, he just didn't choose to fight it ala Lance. Doesn't mean he did.

il_principe

Greg66 wrote:

If the USADA's objective is to prove the conspiracy, a positive WADA protocol test isn't probative of that. So yes, tactically better to trail the oral evidence as the basis of the case.

But... You might then speculate that as to why the USADA went the route it did, rather than proving its case against LA at the contested hearing against JB. One possibility is that the case isn't very strong, and the USADA knows it. So take the bird in the hand while you can.

Although then I do think the WADA protocol test would become be best card in the hand, and be played against LA, which makes me think there is no such card.

"One possibility is that the case isn't very strong, and the USADA knows it"

I'm leaning towards this as well. Tygart has stated that he's expected Armstrong to withdraw:

“It was our expectation from the beginning. He knows all the evidence as well and he knows the truth, and so the smarter move on his part is to attempt to hide behind baseless accusations of process."

So have USDA done everything with an eye to forcing this outcome from LA? Bit of a gamble, but if their evidence is weak then perhaps a worthwhile one.

rick_chasey

We will know what the evidence is soon enough.

rdt

Greg66 wrote:

But... You might then speculate that as to why the USADA went the route it did, rather than proving its case against LA at the contested hearing against JB. One possibility is that the case isn't very strong, and the USADA knows it. So take the bird in the hand while you can.

You may be reading too much into this.

USADA have simply followed their Protocol. When that Protocol was adopted, it may never have been envisaged that an athlete would choose to not contest a non-analytic positive case. Or, if an athlete chose not to contest, it may not have been envisaged how that might ever lead to controversy such as we see currently from some quarters. I'm sure the Protocol could be improved, but they are the current rules, and so that's what USADA is bound to follow.

DonDaddyD wrote:

But that is just semantics, a known unknown. We know that allegedly their is evidence but we don't know what it is or whether it is or proven to be true (I.e. Bush claiming Iraq had WMDs - he said it so many times and it was repeated that we were so sure). How can we then conclude that he did without any reasonable doubt that he did cheat.

It is Lance's right to choose not to fight the case and that is not an admission of guilt. The onus is still on the USDA to prove he cheated and the UCI to support this.

The case has simply followed the steps defined by the USADA Protocol. USADA would have had to present the evidence you refer to and argue their case to the arbitrators if LA had chosen to contest USADA's sanctions. By choosing not to contest the sanctions, the Protocol states that the athlete becomes automatically sanctioned, and that's what happened. They're the rules.

Hence, I think you're describing how you might like things to be, not as they currently are.

DonDaddyD

OK so the athlete has been sanctioned, I get that. But that still doesn't mean he did the thing he was accused of, just that he has been punnished for the thing he has been accused of because he chose not to fight it.

The evidence is still a known unknown and we don't know that it is actually true.

rdt

Il Principe wrote:

So have USDA done everything with an eye to forcing this outcome from LA? Bit of a gamble, but if their evidence is weak then perhaps a worthwhile one.

The obvious riposte to that is why wouldn't LA challenge a case that was based on weak evidence that his lawyers would take apart?

You might come up with various theories as to why someone might choose not to want to defend themselves against various claims and forgo the opportunity of seeing themselves publicly (and finally?) vindicated, but in my mind such theories really struggle against Occam's Razor!

jedster

You know, I never hated LA. My attitude was pretty much - they were all at it, he played by the tacit rules/ethics of the day and was better than the rest at it, including at avoiding positive tests. I'll admit that I hadn't spent a lot of time researching this point of view! I always thought it was UNFAIR that he came out of that period smelling of (slightly past their best) roses whereas all his main rivals had been thrown under the drug enforcement bus but hey - life isn't fair. Don't get me wrong - I don't think the ethics of the day were anything but toxic.

But the tone of evidence, if it is true, and it definitely rings true now, does present LA as a rather contemptible person - bully, ring-leader, arch-cynic, hypocrit. Bad people can make remarkable recoveries from cancer too...

Incidently
"So have USDA done everything with an eye to forcing this outcome from LA? Bit of a gamble, but if their evidence is weak then perhaps a worthwhile one."
I thought USDA had disclised their case to LA? If so, he clearly doesnt think it is weak or he would have called their bluff surely? Afterall, love him or loathe him, he is an utter hard case and never one to shirk a fight. Unless perhaps it is hopeless?

On the question of due process, seems to me that the process is reasonable provided we eventually see a summary ruling on the USDA case. Absent that, it is a bit too opaque.

vermin

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK so the athlete has been sanctioned, I get that. But that still doesn't mean he did the thing he was accused of, just that he has been punnished for the thing he has been accused of because he chose not to fight it.

The evidence is still a known unknown and we don't know that it is actually true.

But that's just an argument to nowhere.

The USOC policy requires USADA to satisfy the following:

The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I think was mentioned earlier this, in simple terms, falls somewhere between the civil and criminal burdens in the UK. It seems that you will not be satisfied until you have certainty, which is not how legal systems work.

rdt

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK so the athlete has been sanctioned, I get that. But that still doesn't mean he did the thing he was accused of, just that he has been punnished for the thing he has been accused of because he chose not to fight it.

The evidence is still a known unknown and we don't know that it is actually true.

You stated in the thread's title that you'll never believe he doped - even while suggesting in the initial post that it's likely he did.

USADA's remit is simply to identify and sanction athletes who dope to gain advantage. They have a Protocol that governs how they go about this, and it appears those rules were adhered to in LA's case.

Is it possible, because of an emotional commitment to the situation, you're seeking something from USADA's process that it was never designed to do and cannot provide you with?

cjcp

Rick Chasey wrote:

We will know what the evidence is soon enough.

That's part of the problem. We should know what the evidence is now. Instead, stuff/stories/reports/"evidence" seems to be creeping out via the media, which makes you wonder whether it's the USADA which are using the media against LA more than the other way round.

If the USADA case is strong, they should have had no difficulty proceeding to a decision on the merits, even if the respondent doesn't participate. Commercial arbitrations and trials can proceed on the same basis, particularly if the claimant wants the judgment or award to be less susceptible to examination or the case effectively being re-heard in the jurisdiction in which enforcement is sought.

rick_chasey

cjcp wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

We will know what the evidence is soon enough.

That's part of the problem. We should know what the evidence is now. Instead, stuff/stories/reports/"evidence" seems to be creeping out via the media, which makes you wonder whether it's the USADA which are using the media against LA more than the other way round.

If the USADA case is strong, they should have had no difficulty proceeding to a decision on the merits, even if the respondent doesn't participate. Commercial arbitrations and trials can proceed on the same basis, particularly if the claimant wants the judgment or award to be less susceptible to examination or the case effectively being re-heard in the jurisdiction in which enforcement is sought.

That's mainly because of the hog though.

If he'd not gone for arbitration surely we'd have heard it all sooner? Or is that bull?

vermin

cjcp wrote:

We should know what the evidence is now

I'm missing something. Why should we know what the evidence is, now or at any other time?

I thought that one of the benefits of arbitration, at least in normal commercial contracts, is privacy. If parties don't mind (or positively desire) having their disputes made public, then they go to court; if they would rather not air their dirty laundry in public then they go to adjudication/arbitration. Why is cycling different?

rick_chasey

vermin wrote:

cjcp wrote:

We should know what the evidence is now

I'm missing something. Why should we know what the evidence is, now or at any other time?

I thought that one of the benefits of arbitration, at least in normal commercial contracts, is privacy. If parties don't mind (or positively desire) having their disputes made public, then they go to court; if they would rather not air their dirty laundry in public then they go to adjudication/arbitration. Why is cycling different?

'cos it's sport innit.

rdt

cjcp wrote:

If the USADA case is strong, they should have had no difficulty proceeding to a decision on the merits, even if the respondent doesn't participate. Commercial arbitrations and trials can proceed on the same basis, particularly if the claimant wants the judgment or award to be less susceptible to examination or the case effectively being re-heard in the jurisdiction in which enforcement is sought.

You're describing something that's outside of USADA's existing Protocol. If the athlete doesn't contest, then there's no scope for a hearing to occur. When an athlete does contest and a hearing occurs, then the hearing is only made open to the public if that's what the athlete decides.

Once LA declined not to contest, USADA's Protocol did not allow for it to progress to a public arbitration hearing in order to publicly present its evidence in the manner that you're suggesting.

It might have been better for transparency if it could have, but them's the rules its governed by. And I've no doubt LA's lawyers were fully aware of how this might play out in terms of perception by his own constituency.

DonDaddyD

vermin wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK so the athlete has been sanctioned, I get that. But that still doesn't mean he did the thing he was accused of, just that he has been punnished for the thing he has been accused of because he chose not to fight it.

The evidence is still a known unknown and we don't know that it is actually true.

But that's just an argument to nowhere.

The USOC policy requires USADA to satisfy the following:

The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I think was mentioned earlier this, in simple terms, falls somewhere between the civil and criminal burdens in the UK. It seems that you will not be satisfied until you have certainty, which is not how legal systems work.

I can't argue against that last sentence.

What happens if the evidence is submitted to the UCI/becomes public and it is proven not sufficient enough to warrant the judgement ruled against Lance?

greg66_tri_v2.0

rdt wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

But... You might then speculate that as to why the USADA went the route it did, rather than proving its case against LA at the contested hearing against JB. One possibility is that the case isn't very strong, and the USADA knows it. So take the bird in the hand while you can.

You may be reading too much into this.

Possibly. But this is a thread on the internet. Wouldn't be interesting without speculation...

rdt wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

So have USDA done everything with an eye to forcing this outcome from LA? Bit of a gamble, but if their evidence is weak then perhaps a worthwhile one.

The obvious riposte to that is why wouldn't LA challenge a case that was based on weak evidence that his lawyers would take apart?

You might come up with various theories as to why someone might choose not to want to defend themselves against various claims and forgo the opportunity of seeing themselves publicly (and finally?) vindicated, but in my mind such theories really struggle against Occam's Razor!

True. But bear in mind the Cake And The Turd Axiom*. LA's lawyers may have concluded that the evidence against the others was much stronger, and that they will go down dragging him down no matter how much better his case appears in isolation. Now that doesn't make much sense without a back door strategy; that may have been the hope/expectation that the UCI would bin the USADA's report, and take the matter to CAS, fighting LA's fight for him there.


*If you offer someone a plate with a cake and a turd on it, they probably won't take the cake.

vermin wrote:

The USOC policy requires USADA to satisfy the following:

The Anti-Doping Organization shall have the burden of establishing that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether the Anti-Doping Organization has established an anti-doping rule violation to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

As I think was mentioned earlier this, in simple terms, falls somewhere between the civil and criminal burdens in the UK. It seems that you will not be satisfied until you have certainty, which is not how legal systems work.

That's the standard of proof required by the arbitration panel in a contested hearing. It's not (as I understand it) the standard applied by the review board that looks at it on a "threshold" bassi before the USADA fires the opening salvo at the athlete.

vermin wrote:

cjcp wrote:

We should know what the evidence is now

I'm missing something. Why should we know what the evidence is, now or at any other time?

I thought that one of the benefits of arbitration, at least in normal commercial contracts, is privacy. If parties don't mind (or positively desire) having their disputes made public, then they go to court; if they would rather not air their dirty laundry in public then they go to adjudication/arbitration. Why is cycling different?

This (confidentiality) is generally true. But the USADA publishes on its website decisions it gets from arbitration panels (presumably because that is the deal athletes agree to). So although the proceedings may be confidential, if there is a hearing (contested or in the absence of the athlete), a reasoned decision will subsequently be published and that will usually contain a summary (at least) of the evidence.

vermin

DonDaddyD wrote:

What happens if the evidence is submitted to the UCI/becomes public and it is proven not sufficient enough to warrant the judgement ruled against Lance?

No judgement has been ruled. There is no case against LA, so the evidence will not be tested. Believe what you will, but in the eyes of his supporters he has neatly sidestepped the allegations; to the rest of the world he has, by walking away, accepted the charges (as one of the clever folk above pointed out, the USADA probably never imagined a situation where an athlete would decide not to defend such allegations).

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

What happens if the evidence is submitted to the UCI/becomes public and it is proven not sufficient enough to warrant the judgement ruled against Lance?

As I understand it, the UCI can/will review the USADA's "report" (ie what the USADA would have advanced as its case, plus the USADA's contentions as to the proper conclusions to be drawn). If it does not agree with the conclusions, it declines to impose sanctions and whole thing heads off to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to determine what the UCI should do.

Whether CAS would rule on the USADA's case or the narrower point of whether the UCI ought to have accepted the USADA's conclusions, I don't know.

tailwindhome

Inner rings analysis is a good clear summary

http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armstrong-quits/

Paul E

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What happens if the evidence is submitted to the UCI/becomes public and it is proven not sufficient enough to warrant the judgement ruled against Lance?

As I understand it, the UCI can/will review the USADA's "report" (ie what the USADA would have advanced as its case, plus the USADA's contentions as to the proper conclusions to be drawn). If it does not agree with the conclusions, it declines to impose sanctions and whole thing heads off to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to determine what the UCI should do.

Whether CAS would rule on the USADA's case or the narrower point of whether the UCI ought to have accepted the USADA's conclusions, I don't know.

But the process now assumes the athlete cheated. This bothets me most because right now its an assumption without tested proof - I get that that is the process but they have seemingly publicly ajugded Lance when they should have waited until UCI/CAS approval. The UCI and, possibly later, CAS just need to agree with the assumption. Right?

beverick

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

................

But the process now assumes the athlete cheated. This bothets me most because right now its an assumption without tested proof - I get that that is the process but they have seemingly publicly ajugded Lance when they should have waited until UCI/CAS approval. The UCI and, possibly later, CAS just need to agree with the assumption. Right?

In all cases, an athlete is assumed to be guilty unless evidence (ie testing) proves to the contrary. It's why athletes (in the wider definition) are banned for failing to provide a sample or miss a test - including Christine Ohuruogu and Rio Ferdinand.

You're assumption re 'approval' is LA's defence viz. that USADA don't have the authority to impose a ban and, again, this is incorrect. It's the role of the appropriate ADA (or to carry out the tests and to sanction offenders in line with their policies. This will, in virtually all cases, cause all associated groups to recognise and enforce the ban under their rules (a notable exception was the British Olympic Association's 'lifetime ban' for drugs cheats which was inconsisent with IOC regulations).

For example, Russian track cyclist Victoria Baranova failed an International Olympic Committee (IOC) pre-Games drugs test in Belarus on 24 July and was excluded from the London Olympics. The UCI immediately "recognised" the test failure and banned her from all competitions.

Bob