# USADA pushes back against UCI request for Armstrong jurisdiction



## cda 455

So is this a pissing contest now  ???




> In a new turn in the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency’s case against seven-time Tour de France champion Lance Armstrong, the agency is pushing back against an apparent move by the UCI to invoke jurisdiction in the investigation.
> 
> _The New York Daily News_ reported on Friday that the UCI had requested that USADA hand over all documents related to the Armstrong investigation. A UCI letter dated July 13 was attached to a brief that USADA filed on Friday in U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas.


USADA pushes back against UCI request for Armstrong jurisdiction


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

WADA was set up to insure that the UCI would not be able to ignore dopers. They seem to think it is 1999

Transparent attempt by the UCI to interfere with the case. It will fail


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> WADA was set up to insure that the UCI would not be able to ignore dopers. They seem to think it is 1999
> 
> Transparent attempt by the UCI to interfere with the case. It will fail



Thanks for chiming in!


That doesn't make UCI look good, does it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Lance Armstrong doping case




> USADA also said it has "strong evidence" that several witnesses in its case against Armstrong's team "have experienced retaliation and attempted intimidation as a result of coming forward,"


----------



## 88 rex

One of these days USADA is going to have to actually release said evidence.


----------



## cda 455

88 rex said:


> One of these days USADA is going to have to actually release said evidence.



It's either going to be the biggest anti-climatic finale ever or it's going to be one huge crater-sized nuke explosion.

We shall see.


----------



## Local Hero

What's wrong with sharing evidence with the UCI? 

USADA is painting themselves into a corner.


----------



## 88 rex

cda 455 said:


> It's either going to be the biggest anti-climatic finale ever or it's going to be one huge crater-sized nuke explosion.
> 
> We shall see.


Indeed. 

Do they need to inform Lance and his lawyers what the evidence is before going to court?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> WADA was set up to insure that the UCI would not be able to ignore dopers. They seem to think it is 1999
> 
> Transparent attempt by the UCI to interfere with the case. It will fail


This isn't a personal attack but it is a personal question: Is English your first language?


----------



## Local Hero

Why do I get the feeling that all of the physical evidence is out already? The only thing yet to be released is the names of witnesses and specific testimony.


----------



## 95zpro

That doesn't make UCI look good, does it?[/QUOTE]

This makes the UCI look very suspicious and reaffirms the notion that the UCI has been in LA's pocket all of these years. This notion that evidence needs to be shared is a farce as well, the case has not even gone to arbitration yet. LA & the UCI are trying to circumvent the process so they can work on damage control; UCI is going to allegedly explain why they have been giving certain riders preferential treatment and LA will try to character assassinate anyone that violates the omertà.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

88 rex said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Do they need to inform Lance and his lawyers what the evidence is before going to court?


Armstrong will get all the evidence. He will also get to cross examine witnesses


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> This isn't a personal attack but it is a personal question: Is English your first language?


I left America when I was 9, came back for college, left again after college. Hence my sentence structure and word choice can be a mix of UK English, Spanish, German and Italian

This is an internet forum so hopefully the grammar police to not mind. In the real world I take a bit more time with my correspondance


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Armstrong will get all the evidence. _*He will also get to cross examine witnesses*_


Hasn't he already been doing that via scare tactics/intimidation, etc, etc????


----------



## rook

This may have something to do with donations made to the UCI and alleged positive tests for PEDs use by Armstrong being swept under the rug after large donations were made. Also, there were reports of illegal notification of random testing to Bruyneel and Armstrong, as well as a slew of other allegations that would show that Pat McQuaid and the execs at the UCI have been knowingly involved in doping in Armstrong's case.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Looks like the UCI has something to hide 

Looking as bad as their behavior related to the report on the '99 EPO "positives" when they clearly knew like everyone else that Armstrong was a doper and at best decided to turn a blind eye.


----------



## fuzz-tone

Jeeez! The UCI is acting more like a co-conspirator than a governing body.


----------



## David Loving

What is the USADA afraid of. They should release their evidence and hammer the court of public opinion. The refusal to inform LA and the public is suspicious, IMO. Kind of like mitty's tax returns.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

David Loving said:


> What is the USADA afraid of. They should release their evidence and hammer the court of public opinion. The refusal to inform LA and the public is suspicious, IMO. Kind of like mitty's tax returns.


Wouldn't that be a violation of due process?

Maybe Armstrong could agree to it but I would think it would be against the rules otherwise to try Armstrong in the court of public opinion?


----------



## 88 rex

Dwayne Barry said:


> Wouldn't that be a violation of due process?
> 
> Maybe Armstrong could agree to it but I would think it would be against the rules otherwise to try Armstrong in the court of public opinion?



At this stage of the game what is the due process?


----------



## rook

Dwayne Barry said:


> Wouldn't that be a violation of due process?
> 
> Maybe Armstrong could agree to it but I would think it would be against the rules otherwise to try Armstrong in the court of public opinion?



Actually, that is quite correct? Why would Armstrong get a different set of rules and process than Landis, Hamilton, and all the other American athletes that have been alleged to use PEDs before him?

Something doesn't sound right with the UCI trying to create a different judicial process just for Armstrong. It appears that Armstrong's legal strategy is to try to discredit USADA and thwart the process by any means they can whether that be through the courts, Congress, or now appealing to the UCI.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

88 rex said:


> At this stage of the game what is the due process?


Whatever is laid out in the WADA rules which Armstrong agreed to when he took out his racing license.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

rook said:


> Actually, that is quite correct? Why would Armstrong get a different set of rules and process than Landis, Hamilton, and all the other American athletes that have been alleged to use PEDs before him?
> 
> Something doesn't sound right with the UCI trying to create a different judicial process just for Armstrong. It appears that Armstrong's legal strategy is to try to discredit USADA and thwart the process by any means they can whether that be through the courts, Congress, or now appealing to the UCI.


Wonder why?


----------



## RRRoubaix

Wow. Just wow.
So it's not the UCI asking for USADA to _share_ the evidence- they're asking USADA to *hand over* all the evidence?
Dayum, that's ballsy even for McQuaid!


----------



## rook

If it is proven that Armstrong deliberately tried to contact Pat McQuaid with further pressure to make USADA's jurisdiction invalid, could Armstrong then be charged with unfairly biasing the process or tampering with evidence?


----------



## trailrunner68

RRRoubaix said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> So it's not the UCI asking for USADA to _share_ the evidence- they're asking USADA to *hand over* all the evidence?
> Dayum, that's ballsy even for McQuaid!


It is also the UCI demanding the USADA stop the case. The words are right there in the letter.

I wonder what McQuaid sent to USA Cycling. You know the weasels there will try to help their buddy Armstrong.


----------



## OldChipper

In principle I'm OK with the USADA not turning over the investigation to UCI if they think they're a co-conspirator - and would even be glad if the overall focus was on the enabling organization rather than the individuals who were doing what was effectively permitted in contradiction of the rules. But if part of their point is that UCI isn't an impartial panel, USADA doesn't do much to support their impartiality with statements like:

“...The participants of the USPS doping conspiracy made their decisions to use dangerous banned drugs to win and our job is to apply the rules whether someone is famous or anonymous and we will do that on behalf of the millions of people who demand clean sport despite these external pressures.”

This strongly implies they've reached their conclusion prior to the final case being heard (and incidentally smacks more than a bit of megalo-maniacal self-righteousness)


----------



## trailrunner68

OldChipper said:


> In principle I'm OK with the USADA not turning over the investigation to UCI if they think they're a co-conspirator - and would even be glad if the overall focus was on the enabling organization rather than the individuals who were doing what was effectively permitted in contradiction of the rules. But if part of their point is that UCI isn't an impartial panel, USADA doesn't do much to support their impartiality with statements like:
> 
> “...The participants of the USPS doping conspiracy made their decisions to use dangerous banned drugs to win and our job is to apply the rules whether someone is famous or anonymous and we will do that on behalf of the millions of people who demand clean sport despite these external pressures.”
> 
> This strongly implies they've reached their conclusion prior to the final case being heard (and incidentally smacks more than a bit of megalo-maniacal self-righteousness)


Of course they have reached a conclusion. The USADA are acting as prosecutors. They would not have initiated proceedings if they did not conclude that Armstrong doped. The USADA does not judge the case. Independent arbitrators do.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

OldChipper said:


> This strongly implies they've reached their conclusion prior to the final case being heard (and incidentally smacks more than a bit of megalo-maniacal self-righteousness)


They reached their conclusion already. Just like the DA has reached a conclusion when they bring charges in a criminal case.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Why do I get the feeling that all of the physical evidence is out already? The only thing yet to be released is the names of witnesses and specific testimony.


It isn't. USADA has made it clear it only released information that is already in the public domain in order to reduce the likelihood of harassment of witnesses and interference of the investigation. 

We are currently in the early stages of this. In a normal court the defendant needs to enter a plea, guilty, not guilty, or no contest. If the defendant pleas not guilty they enter the discovery phase where evidence is shared. 

Armstrong has not even entered a plea yet. If he chooses to fight he gets all the evidence and is allowed to cross examine the witnesses. He knows this but continues to pretend otherwise


----------



## Local Hero

How exactly does USADA have jurisdiction over who wins le tour?


----------



## blackhat

Local Hero said:


> How exactly does USADA have jurisdiction over who wins le tour?


LA's a US athlete. As such, per WADA, he's governed by his national federation which is USADA. 

You've heard this before, repeatedly, but he was aware of and helped write the rules he's now complaining about.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> How exactly does USADA have jurisdiction over who wins le tour?


USADA has jurisdiction over who is sanctioned for doping. The UCI accepted this fact for many years



> As a consequence, at its meeting of 22-23 July 2004, the UCI Management Committee decided to accept the World Anti-Doping Code and to incorporate the Code in UCI’s Regulations


Which is why McQuaid agreed the this was USADA's case multiple times.


----------



## rook

How much money has been proven that Armstrong donate to the UCI? And if it is true that large multiple donations were made to the UCI, wouldn't there be a conflict of interest and the people like Pat McQuaid could have other less than honest motives in wanting the UCI to wreck the standard process as initiated by USADA?


----------



## OldChipper

May have been posted before, but an interesting law review article on burden of proof in non-analytical positive cases:

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=sportslaw

Each "side' will read into it what they want, but one message comes through which can be summarized by, as Carl Sagan (paraphrasing LaPlace) said in a different context: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" By making very extraordinary claims of multi-year, multi-party conspiracy to dope and traffic and seeking lifetime bans and eradication of multiple results, USADA may have set themselves a challenging task or at least one more challenging than absolutely necessary.


----------



## frontierwolf

blackhat said:


> LA's a US athlete. As such, per WADA, he's governed by his national federation which is USADA.
> 
> You've heard this before, repeatedly, but he was aware of and helped write the rules he's now complaining about.


But USADA didn't cover professional cycling until 2004? I don't think it's a given than this will even get to trial. It seems like the first step is shaping up to be a battle that will determine what the scope of the USADA's charges and evidence can be. They could whittle it down to the point that the USADA doesn't have much of a case. 

I think the UCI's concern is that their testing could be rendered irrelevant. If you say the UCI testing policies are suspect then who is going to monitor the professional sport? 

Has anyone been banned before with only circumstantial evidence or witness testimony?


----------



## frontierwolf

Upon further thought, it may be just as likely that USADA is trying to push the UCI out of the testing business in order to expand their own scope. They would have rationale for asking for budget increases and increasing their influence.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

frontierwolf said:


> If you say the UCI testing policies are suspect then who is going to monitor the professional sport?
> 
> Has anyone been banned before with only circumstantial evidence or witness testimony?


WADA was created in part because of the complicity of governing bodies in covering up doping (e.g. U.S. track and field). It is never in the interest of the governing body which regulates and promotes the sport to black its own eye by revealing doping especially of its stars.

Yes, is the answer to your second question.


----------



## jjmstang

frontierwolf said:


> Upon further thought, it may be just as likely that USADA is trying to push the UCI out of the testing business in order to expand their own scope. They would have rationale for asking for budget increases and increasing their influence.


WADA does the testing
UCI governs the rules of cycling


----------



## rook

The UCI voluntarily released jurisdiction of Armstrong when they accepted monetary donations from him.


----------



## Local Hero

Lance Armstrong: Victim? | Outside Celebrities | OutsideOnline.com

^it's a month old but I haven't seen it posted before.


----------



## Local Hero

*Is that how USADA got the evidence against Armstrong this time—from the federal investigation?*

Nobody really knows. Tygart has stated that USADA’s case doesn’t rely on any evidence from that investigation. Experts, though, tend to laugh when they hear that, and, after the federal investigation ended, Tygart was quoted as saying he looked forward to getting the evidence gathered. Weston says it’s pretty obvious to her that the government and USADA are intertwined. As Outside has reported, Tygart and USADA were deeply involved with the investigation of Armstrong, even sitting in on some witness interviews.

Nothing gives USADA this power other than the discretion of investigators. In effect, a private corporation, regulated only by a foreign-based agency (WADA), has harnessed the power of the U.S. government to do what the corporation cannot legally do itself.

This is troubling because a bedrock principle of American justice is that grand jury testimony is secret. After all, a grand jury, using its subpoena powers and threat of perjury charges, might investigate somebody, find out all kinds of nasty things, and still not issue an indictment. If it doesn’t, the person investigated shouldn’t have to see his dirty laundry—obtained through government power—aired in public.


----------



## Chris-X

Local Hero said:


> Lance Armstrong: Victim? | Outside Celebrities | OutsideOnline.com
> 
> ^it's a month old but I haven't seen it posted before.


ut::14::lol::lol::lol::lol::wink::10::ciappa: :incazzato:



The Boxer

I am just a poor boy 
Though my story's seldom told 
I have squandered my resistance 
For a pocket full of mumbles such are promises 
All lies and jests 
*Still a man hears what he wants to hear 
And disregards the rest *


----------



## blackhat

Local Hero said:


> Lance Armstrong: Victim? | Outside Celebrities | OutsideOnline.com
> 
> ^it's a month old but I haven't seen it posted before.



Here's something newer if you're looking for reading material.

Lance Armstrong: the end | Cycle Sport


----------



## OldChipper

Local Hero said:


> *Is that how USADA got the evidence against Armstrong this time—from the federal investigation?*
> 
> Nobody really knows. Tygart has stated that USADA’s case doesn’t rely on any evidence from that investigation. Experts, though, tend to laugh when they hear that, and, after the federal investigation ended, Tygart was quoted as saying he looked forward to getting the evidence gathered. Weston says it’s pretty obvious to her that the government and USADA are intertwined. As Outside has reported, Tygart and USADA were deeply involved with the investigation of Armstrong, even sitting in on some witness interviews.
> 
> Nothing gives USADA this power other than the discretion of investigators. In effect, a private corporation, regulated only by a foreign-based agency (WADA), has harnessed the power of the U.S. government to do what the corporation cannot legally do itself.
> 
> This is troubling because a bedrock principle of American justice is that grand jury testimony is secret. After all, a grand jury, using its subpoena powers and threat of perjury charges, might investigate somebody, find out all kinds of nasty things, and still not issue an indictment. If it doesn’t, the person investigated shouldn’t have to see his dirty laundry—obtained through government power—aired in public.


^This. And this is, of course, one of the bases of LA's lawsuit i.e. USADA is behaving as a state actor, using state powers.

All along, I've had a bit of a problem with this approach of: "well, there wasn't enough evidence to prove it in a court of law, so we'll just take it to another venue where the burden of proof isn't as high." Troubling.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

OldChipper said:


> ^This. And this is, of course, one of the bases of LA's lawsuit i.e. USADA is behaving as a state actor, using state powers.
> 
> All along, I've had a bit of a problem with this approach of: "well, there wasn't enough evidence to prove it in a court of law, so we'll just take it to another venue where the burden of proof isn't as high." Troubling.


That's not what happened.


----------



## cda 455

Chris-X said:


> ut::14::lol::lol::lol::lol::wink::10::ciappa: :incazzato:
> 
> 
> 
> The Boxer
> 
> I am just a poor boy
> Though my story's seldom told
> I have squandered my resistance
> For a pocket full of mumbles such are promises
> All lies and jests
> *Still a man hears what he wants to hear
> And disregards the rest *



I love that song :thumbsup: !


----------



## blackhat

OldChipper said:


> ^This. And this is, of course, one of the bases of LA's lawsuit i.e. USADA is behaving as a state actor, using state powers.
> 
> All along, I've had a bit of a problem with this approach of: "well, there wasn't enough evidence to prove it in a court of law, so we'll just take it to another venue where the burden of proof isn't as high." Troubling.


Completely wrong. Who is "we"? Are you under the impression that USADA brought a case to DOJ? They opened their own investigation, of a different set of charges (as opposed to sanctions), with their own burden of proof. 

Don't be "troubled". At least not by this fabrication.


----------



## cda 455

blackhat said:


> Here's something newer if you're looking for reading material.
> 
> Lance Armstrong: the end | Cycle Sport


From the link:



> Michele Ferrari, Armstrong’s old coach and one of the six defendants in the USADA action, is on the record as talking about the Texan being able to express a sustained power output of 6.7 watts per kilogram of body weight when he was winning the Tour.
> 
> The late Aldo Sassi, who was respected as one of the best cycling coaches and whose reputation was spotless, concluded that a sustained 6.2 watts per kilo was probably the limit of human achievement under normal physiological conditions. Unpredictable variables, such as length of effort, would skew the numbers a little, but figures above 6 are freakish – the absolute limit of human achievement. 6.0 would win a Grand Tour these days (Sassi was quoted in the New York Times as saying that in the 2009 Giro, only one rider – Denis Menchov – got above six). 6.7 is impossible. It’s over 11 per cent more than 6.0, in an elite area of performance where the margins between riders are impossibly thin. It would be the equivalent of a long jumper jumping 9.93 metres (Mike Powell’s world record is 8.95 metres, and that was a pretty freakish jump).
> 
> Armstrong rode up Alpe d’Huez in 37-36 in the 2004 Tour de France, one second behind Marco Pantani’s record (although there is debate about the measurements based on where the climb actually starts and finishes). The fastest time last year was 41-21, by Samuel Sanchez. That’s a difference of just under 10 per cent.
> 
> The early 2000s were a different era, not just in cycling. The credit boom made us all think that some kind of new paradigm had been invented, one which would make us all richer. It turned out to be built on fresh air – maybe the background of our lives made some people believe more easily the myth that the laws of nature could be broken.
> 
> It makes us feel good to ascribe superhuman abilities to humans, to believe that force of will can drive special individuals to incredible achievements. It’s different this time. Armstrong fed this myth, by claiming to train harder. His fans claimed that his battle with cancer gave him the mental fortitude to ride away from his rivals.
> 
> But it’s a fairy tale. _*An individual with the right combination of genetic attributes and physiology might come along with an advantage of one or two per cent over the very best of his rivals. Five per cent? Human beings don’t work like that. 10 per cent or more? Sorry. You’re being lied to.*_


I've heard this before.

From a point of amazement rather than suspicion.


As a nOOB to this, all I can say is, "Wow."


----------



## nate

Let's play jurisdiction hot potato!


----------



## biobanker

Do we know who released the names of some if the witnesses yet?


----------



## Local Hero

Does Tygart have testimony from the grand jury?


----------



## badge118

Local Hero said:


> What's wrong with sharing evidence with the UCI?
> 
> USADA is painting themselves into a corner.


Basically a jurisdictional pissing match. The UCI appears to think that they should be the ones to go after people if their national feds won't (refering to JB and the Spaniards). The USADA since they brought the case forward don't want to let it go. 

I think much of the latests UCI complaints (such as saying conspiracy cases are not allowed by the rules) have little to do with actual concern and are simply being used to bolster their argument that they should have the case. Basically "not only should we have jurisdiction by look they don't even know what they are doing."

As for the UCI not having jurisdiction I am surprised this argument has not come up before Valverde and AC. The WADA rules give the National fed the ability to bring cases BUT the UCI also has authority. If they didn't Valverde would not have gotten a world wide ban, that happened because the UCI brought a case the CAS when the Spanish Fed would not. 

What I find MOST interesting is that WADA has not sounded off yet. I think they realize that with their rules both parties do have jurisdictional arguments and they want to keep the actual WADA out of the pissing match. Join the USADA and then the UCI comes into question (not good since they are spear heading the bio passport program) Join the UCI and then you add ammo to the argument that the system is counter to due process as alleged.

What I am most waiting for though is the USADA's response to the UCI challenge to go to CAS to settle jurisdiction. I wouldn't bet on one side or the other if it went to CAS after reading the details of the Contador case.


----------



## badge118

Local Hero said:


> Does Tygart have testimony from the grand jury?


They claim no BUT Tygart was present for a lot of the questioning by Federal Agents at the Feds request due to his expertise so only the most naive person would say that knowledge that was a direct result of the Federal Investigation (in general) was not used.


----------



## badge118

blackhat said:


> Here's something newer if you're looking for reading material.
> 
> Lance Armstrong: the end | Cycle Sport


Ummm when I work out the % difference I am finding a difference of 7.75%. Note I think Lance noted but all this "10%" difference crap isn't quite accurate. If you look at tonight's 100 meter finals time there is a ~5% difference between the first and 7th (don't count the dead last runner Powell, he pulled a muscle. 

We either have to say "okay all athletes dope this whole argument is academic" or acknowledge that differences in genetics, training etc can make surprising differences in performance (with in reason of course.) 

Basically simply comparing performance of one athlete to another is a crap way to determine doping because of all the variables. (Again with in reason)


----------



## cda 455

badge118 said:


> Ummm when I work out the % difference I am finding a difference of 7.75%. Note I think Lance noted but all this "10%" difference crap isn't quite accurate. If you look at tonight's 100 meter finals time there is a ~5% difference between the first and 7th (don't count the dead last runner Powell, he pulled a muscle.
> 
> We either have to say "okay all athletes dope this whole argument is academic" or acknowledge that differences in genetics, training etc can make surprising differences in performance (with in reason of course.)
> 
> Basically simply comparing performance of one athlete to another is a crap way to determine doping because of all the variables. (Again with in reason)



According to the article, 1% to 2% difference is possible (Against _the_ best rivals).

A 5% difference is basically unpossible.

And anything over 5% is an all-out lie. 


So your corrected 7.5% is still an unpossible feat to attain.


----------



## badge118

cda 455 said:


> According to the article, 1% to 2% difference is possible (Against _the_ best rivals).
> 
> A 5% difference is basically unpossible.
> 
> And anything over 5% is an all-out lie.
> 
> 
> So your corrected 7.5% is still an unpossible feat to attain.


So then all of the top olympic athletes this year are doping because the finalists certainly have at least 5% better times etc than many of their competitors. OR such comparison from one specific athlete to another specific athlete is bad science based purely on performance is bad science. Yes their are limits but the limits change based on technology, training methods etc.

Once the sub 10 second 100 meter, the sub 4 minute mile were all thought to be impossible barriers to beat. They were and are routinely now. Sorry but you keep ignoring the fact of all the other elite athletes in this week alone that have beaten other elite athletes by at least 5% performance wise. such a comparison is only valid scientifically if you have a quantifiable baseline, account for all the X factors and more that I noted above etc. Simply because one athlete beats another by X% means nothing tbh. 

Also %'s of difference mean different things is context. Look at the long jump example given. Seems crazy. Look at that same difference in terms of 100 meter sprints however and suddenly the difference means much less. Look at it in terms of total watts. Two 70 kg riders. On producing 6.2 and another 6.7. The first is generating 434, the other 469. Now things don't look so odd do they? And guess what even though they don't look so odd the result means jack all as there is no accepted control to put them next to that does not involve an estimate given without foundation by a dead guy.

Sorry as I said he doped but this is crap and not evidence.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Does Tygart have testimony from the grand jury?


No. The Feds have not shared any evidence. 

Travis did sit in on some of the non-Grand Jury testimony at the request of the athletes


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

There appears to be a lot of confusion generated by the UCI smokescreen. For a good review of the fact I suggest reading USADA's letter to Pat
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102034896/42-2-USADA-letter-to-Pat-McQuaid-dated-26-July-2012


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No. The Feds have not shared any evidence.
> 
> Travis did sit in on some of the non-Grand Jury testimony *at the request of the athletes*


What non-grand jury testimony? 

*Source?*


----------



## MarkS

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There appears to be a lot of confusion generated by the UCI smokescreen. For a good review of the fact I suggest reading USADA's letter to Pat
> 42-2 USADA letter to Pat McQuaid dated 26 July 2012


The letter is the best summary that I have read,


----------



## Local Hero

The argument that 

_*His performance was too good, it could only be the result of drug use.*_

is shyte. It's not evidence. It's nothing.


----------



## Fireform

Local Hero said:


> The argument that
> 
> _*His performance was too good, it could only be the result of drug use.*_
> 
> is shyte. It's not evidence. It's nothing.


What about the testimonies of a dozen or so teammates and close associates that he doped, they doped together, etc. Also irrelevant?

What is it about thus guy that you're so determined to defend him?


----------



## Local Hero

Fireform said:


> What about the testimonies of a dozen or so teammates and close associates that he doped, they doped together, etc. Also irrelevant?


Eyewitness testimony is better evidence than than claiming _that performance could only be the result of drugs_. 



> What is it about thus guy that you're so determined to defend him?


I'm flattered that you're interested in my personal motivations! 

But this isn't about Lance Armstrong. It's about the process.


----------



## David Loving

What is the proof that the substance the "eyewitnesses" said is dope really is dope? That's the problem with eyewitness testimony and chemicals. An "eyewitness" cannot say what was in the syringe. was it cocaine or cornstarch? was it xyz or abc? Now nobody get excited about taking sides. I am merely pointing out an evidence issue.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> What non-grand jury testimony?
> 
> *Source?*


Few witnesses testified in front of the grand jury, most volunteered to meet with investigators.

Source:Armstrong's lawyer, Bob Luskin.....but given his tenuous relationship with the truth you may want to question it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> What is the proof that the substance the "eyewitnesses" said is dope really is dope? That's the problem with eyewitness testimony and chemicals. An "eyewitness" cannot say what was in the syringe. was it cocaine or cornstarch? was it xyz or abc? Now nobody get excited about taking sides. I am merely pointing out an evidence issue.


Certainly possible that when they were all getting a transfusion that Floyd, Tyler, and George were getting bags of blood but Lance was just getting a bag of grape juice. Possible, but not likely. :thumbsup:

Multiple witnesses say they received drugs directly from Lance


----------



## Local Hero

David Loving said:


> What is the proof that the substance the "eyewitnesses" said is dope really is dope? That's the problem with eyewitness testimony and chemicals. An "eyewitness" cannot say what was in the syringe. was it cocaine or cornstarch? was it xyz or abc? Now nobody get excited about taking sides. I am merely pointing out an evidence issue.


I think that's exactly right. 

The most damning evidence is a positive test for a banned substance in the system. 


The rest...meh. I predict it will be picked apart. That's why this "cumulative evidence" cases -- cases based on looking at a dozen factors in concert -- are so difficult for prosecutors. The prosecutors are throwing everything against the wall to see what will stick. The defense will pick apart every single piece of evidence. Every single thing. 

Armstrong's hope is to diminish all physical evidence with experts who disagree on the tiresome details. He then has to claim that the witnesses against him were confused, strongarmed into testifying, or attack them as bitter. 

USADA's hope is for a biased panel using a low standard of proof.


----------



## trailrunner68

Local Hero said:


> But this isn't about Lance Armstrong. It's about the process.


It appears to be about Armstrong and his fanboys not wanting the same process that applies to everyone else to apply to Armstrong.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Few witnesses testified in front of the grand jury, most volunteered to meet with investigators.
> 
> Source:Armstrong's lawyer, Bob Luskin.....but given his tenuous relationship with the truth you may want to question it.


Do we have any idea who they were or what they said?


Doctor Falsetti said:


> Certainly possible that when they were all getting a transfusion that Floyd, Tyler, and George were getting bags of blood but Lance was just getting a bag of grape juice. Possible, but not likely. :thumbsup:
> 
> Multiple witnesses say they received drugs directly from Lance


The blood is one thing. We all know blood when we see it. 

But little ampules or vials...even an IV drip. If it comes down to it, Armstrong will argue that athletes are not doctors or chemists. They don't really know what is in there.


----------



## Fireform

I guess if you start a foundation to raise money for cancer research, you're above the rules. Maybe I should found one and go knock off a few banks. I could claim a portion of the proceeds was going to fight cancer, so only cancer lovers would want me prosecuted.


----------



## blackhat

Fireform said:


> I guess if you start a foundation to raise money for cancer research, you're above the rules. Maybe I should found one and go knock off a few banks. I could claim a portion of the proceeds was going to fight cancer, so only cancer lovers would want me prosecuted.


Livetrong doesn't raise money for cancer research.

Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com


----------



## Local Hero

blackhat said:


> Livetrong doesn't raise money for cancer research.
> 
> Lance Armstrong and Livestrong | Lance Armstrong | OutsideOnline.com


That article needs exactly one less picture showing Cupid arrows and Lance's pubes and exactly one more pie graph showing the distribution of Livestrong moneys.


----------



## Fireform

Nice. Thank you for that.

It turns out that by buying those yellow bracelets, you're providing Livestrong with the means to...sell more yellow bracelets.


----------



## blackhat

Local Hero said:


> That article needs exactly one less picture showing Cupid arrows and Lance's pubes and exactly one more pie graph showing the distribution of Livestrong moneys.


Or you could read it.

LIVESTRONG PRIDES ITSELF on the fact that—on paper, anyway—it spends 81 percent of every dollar on programs. This is a big improvement over 2005, when the American Institute of Philanthropy took Livestrong to task for spending 45 cents of every dollar on fundraising. Now AIP gives Livestrong an A-minus, while Charity Navigator rates it three stars out of four.

But the foundation’s financial reports from 2009 and 2010 show that Livestrong’s resources pay for a very large amount of marketing and PR. During those years, the foundation raised $84 million and spent just over $60 million. (The rest went into a reserve of cash and assets that now tops $100 million.)

A surprising $4.2 million of that went straight to advertising, including large expenditures for banner ads and optimal search-engine placement. Outsourcing is the order of the day: $14 million of total spending, or more than 20 percent, went to outside consultants and professionals. That figure includes $2 million for construction, but much of the money went to independent organizations that actually run Livestrong programs. For example, Livestrong paid $1 million to a Boston–based public-health consulting firm to manage its campaigns in Mexico and South Africa against cancer stigma—the perception that cancer is contagious or invariably fatal.

Livestrong touts its stigma programs, but it spent more than triple that, $3.5 million in 2010 alone, for merchandise giveaways and order fulfillment. Curiously, on Livestrong’s tax return most of those merchandise costs were categorized as “program” expenses. CFO Greg Lee says donating the wristbands counts as a program because “it raises awareness.”

This kind of spending dwarfs Livestrong’s outlays for its direct services and patient-focused programs like Livestrong at the YMCA, an exercise routine tailored to cancer survivors available at YMCAs nationwide ($424,000 in 2010). There’s also a Livestrong at School program, offered in conjunction with Scholastic magazine ($630,000 in 2010). “Explain to students that Lance was very sick with cancer but that he was treated and got better,” begins one sample lesson plan for grades three through six. 

Livestrong spends as much on legal bills as on these two programs combined: $1.8 million in 2009–10, mainly to protect its trademarks. In one memorable case, its lawyers shut down a man in Oklahoma who was selling Barkstrong dog collars. Meanwhile, “benefits to donors” (also merchandise, as well as travel expenses for Livestrong Challenge fundraisers) accounted for another $1.4 million in spending in 2010.

There’s still a research department, but now it focuses on things like quality-of-life surveys of cancer survivors. During my visit, I was plied with glossy reports and brochures, which are cranked out by the truckload. The foundation’s 2010 copying-and-printing bill came to almost $1.5 million.

But Livestrong’s largest single project in 2009—indeed, the main focus of Armstrong’s comeback—was the Livestrong Global Cancer Summit, held in Dublin in August. The summit ate up close to 20 percent of the foundation’s $30 million in program spending that year.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Basically a jurisdictional pissing match. The UCI appears to think that they should be the ones to go after people if their national feds won't (refering to JB and the Spaniards). The USADA since they brought the case forward don't want to let it go.
> 
> I think much of the latests UCI complaints (such as saying conspiracy cases are not allowed by the rules) have little to do with actual concern and are simply being used to bolster their argument that they should have the case. Basically "not only should we have jurisdiction by look they don't even know what they are doing."
> 
> As for the UCI not having jurisdiction I am surprised this argument has not come up before Valverde and AC. The WADA rules give the National fed the ability to bring cases BUT the UCI also has authority. If they didn't Valverde would not have gotten a world wide ban, that happened because the UCI brought a case the CAS when the Spanish Fed would not.
> 
> What I find MOST interesting is that WADA has not sounded off yet. I think they realize that with their rules both parties do have jurisdictional arguments and they want to keep the actual WADA out of the pissing match. Join the USADA and then the UCI comes into question (not good since they are spear heading the bio passport program) Join the UCI and then you add ammo to the argument that the system is counter to due process as alleged.
> 
> What I am most waiting for though is the USADA's response to the UCI challenge to go to CAS to settle jurisdiction. I wouldn't bet on one side or the other if it went to CAS after reading the details of the Contador case.


There is no confusion on this, USADA has jurisdiction. All the rules says this and the UCI acknowledged this multiple times over the last 2 years. McQuaid and Verburggen did a sudden change when they realized that their decade of corruption would be exposed. 

USADA's very detailed response is here

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102124068/102034896-42-2-USADA-Letter-to-Pat-McQuaid-Dated-26-July-2012


----------



## Local Hero

I found this paragraph particularly misleading: 

_Nike’s commitment goes well beyond selling merchandise and sponsorship to producing ads that promote Livestrong, Armstrong, and the Nike brand all at once. In one particularly memorable spot from 2009, Armstrong verbally took on his critics. “They say I’m arrogant… a doper… washed up…a fraud,” he said over scenes of himself on his bike intercut with shots of cancer patients getting chemo treatments, crawling out of bed, and unsteadily lifting weights. “I’m not back on my bike for them.”_

Them? The way Gifford wrote that makes it sound as though Armstrong is saying that he's not back on the bike for them, the cancer patients. But watch the commercial:






It's clear that Armstrong is saying he's not back on his back for the critics; he is back on the bike for the cancer patients. I don't think this is a mistake on the author's part -- the entire article is saying that Lance is not doing anything for cancer research. And that's a fine point. We need watchdogs to police charities. Like I said, the article would be more convincing with less pubes and more pie charts.


----------



## Chris-X

Fireform said:


> What about the testimonies of a dozen or so teammates and close associates that he doped, they doped together, etc. Also irrelevant?
> 
> What is it about thus guy that you're so determined to defend him?


Love?



Local Hero said:


> Eyewitness testimony is better evidence than than claiming _that performance could only be the result of drugs_.
> 
> I'm flattered that you're interested in my personal motivations!
> 
> But this isn't about Lance Armstrong. It's about the process.


Yeah, process! Funny thing about incentivizing and disincentivizing rewards and deterrents. Bags of money tend to incentivize. Threatening livelihoods tend to disincentivize. TdF fame and fortune....is an incentive. Losing your spot on the TEAM for refusing shots seems to be a disincentive to me.

Idol worship and keeping gravy trains running provides personal motivation for some. Being that all the facts are against LA it seems he will go the motivation route on this one. Not that you'll ever know because USADA will be a closed hearing unless you believe in miracles.



trailrunner68 said:


> It appears to be about Armstrong and his *fanboys* not wanting the same process that applies to everyone else to apply to Armstrong.


Why are you so dismissive of love?



Local Hero said:


> Maybe it does appear that way...to those who love cancer.
> 
> In a related story, if we all stop talking about fanboys and stop asking "what's your motivation?" maybe we can stick to discussing Armstrong and the evidence against him.


Pssst, "Lance" wants to keep this on an emotional level.



Local Hero said:


> I think that's exactly right.
> 
> The most damning evidence is a positive test for a banned substance in the system.
> 
> 
> The rest...meh. I predict it will be picked apart. That's why this "cumulative evidence" cases -- cases based on looking at a dozen factors in concert -- are so difficult for prosecutors. The prosecutors are throwing everything against the wall to see what will stick. The defense will pick apart every single piece of evidence. Every single thing.
> 
> Armstrong's hope is to diminish all physical evidence with experts who disagree on the tiresome details. He then has to claim that the witnesses against him were confused, strongarmed into testifying, or attack them as bitter.
> 
> USADA's hope is for a biased panel using a low standard of proof.


The truth will decide. One side wants to hide it, the other wants full disclosure.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Local Hero said:


> But little ampules or vials...even an IV drip. If it comes down to it, Armstrong will argue that athletes are not doctors or chemists. They don't really know what is in there.


Do you really think that argument will fly, given they try it?

It's also against the rules to try to dope, so he would be just as guilty if they really weren't drugs but he represented them as drugs to the people giving the testimony, giving every impression he thought they were drugs. Especially given that he isn't charged simply with taking drugs but influencing others to take drugs as well.

IIRC, Dario Frigo was caught with "drugs" and suspended even though the vials didn't contain what they said they contained.


----------



## Chris-X

:thumbsup:


Local Hero said:


> I found this paragraph particularly misleading:
> 
> _Nike’s commitment goes well beyond selling merchandise and sponsorship to producing ads that promote Livestrong, Armstrong, and the Nike brand all at once. In one particularly memorable spot from 2009, Armstrong verbally took on his critics. “*They say I’m arrogant… a doper*… washed up…a fraud,” he said over scenes of himself on his bike intercut with shots of cancer patients getting chemo treatments, crawling out of bed, and unsteadily lifting weights. “*I’m not back on my bike for them.”[/*I]
> 
> *Them? The way Gifford wrote that makes it sound as though Armstrong is saying that he's not back on the bike for them, the cancer patients. But watch the commercial:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's clear that Armstrong is saying he's not back on his back for the critics; he is back on the bike for the cancer patients. I don't think this is a mistake on the author's part -- the entire article is saying that Lance is not doing anything for cancer research. And that's a fine point. We need watchdogs to police charities. Like I said, the article would be more convincing with less pubes and more pie charts._


_

It doesn't sound that way to me at all bro. It's very clear, even reading Gifford that Armstrong is saying he's not back on the bike for his critics.

Continue attacking strawmen.:thumbsup:_


----------



## Chris-X

*Yo!*



Local Hero said:


> OK, I'm going to answer this in hope that it will shut you up.
> 
> Now can you clowns stop talking about personal stuff and stick to Lance Armstrong?


Why don't you take a time out and read_ *From Lance to Landis?*_

I know you've disparaged it without knowing what's in it but it will give you a lot of info you apparently are unaware of.

It also seems that you prefer creating your own narratives as to events. That's ok for living inside your own head but those narratives have to jibe with reality to have any meaningful discussion here.


----------



## Local Hero

Falsetti, 

One more thing: You talked about _non-grand jury testimony._ When pressed on this you said that some witnesses volunteered to meet with investigators. Were there affidavits or anything under oath? 

We should be careful to distinguish TESTIMONY from voluntary statements made to investigators.


----------



## Local Hero

Dwayne Barry said:


> Do you really think that argument will fly, given they try it?


Of course it is a last-resort argument, one made in desperation. 

But once an eye witness admits to _not knowing_ with certainty what was in the injection, Armstrong's PR steamroller will repeatedly state that the witnesses "don't know" and "can't say" if anyone really doped. Just imagine the headline: 

*Prosecution Eye Witnesses "Don't know" if Armstrong Doped*


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Of course it is a last-resort argument, one made in desperation.
> 
> But once an eye witness admits to _not knowing_ with certainty what was in the injection, Armstrong's PR steamroller will repeatedly state that the witnesses "don't know" and "can't say" if anyone really doped. Just imagine the headline:
> 
> *Prosecution Eye Witnesses "Don't know" if Armstrong Doped*


Do you think that the AAA arbitrators care about Armstrong's PR machine? 

He might have success with some groupies who are willing to suspend rational thought in order to continue to believe a myth but I doubt he will have much luck in court...... especially as little of the evidence is public


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Local Hero said:


> Of course it is a last-resort argument, one made in desperation.
> 
> But once an eye witness admits to _not knowing_ with certainty what was in the injection, Armstrong's PR steamroller will repeatedly state that the witnesses "don't know" and "can't say" if anyone really doped. Just imagine the headline:
> 
> *Prosecution Eye Witnesses "Don't know" if Armstrong Doped*


I suspect given what we've heard from witnesses so far, this is all rather moot anyway. There's almost certainly going to be people who said they saw him taking transfusions, just like they did.


----------



## Local Hero

Dwayne Barry said:


> I suspect given what we've heard from witnesses so far, this is all rather moot anyway. There's almost certainly going to be people who said they saw him taking transfusions, just like they did.


Right. Like I said, nobody knows if the clear liquid is saline or EPO. But we all know blood.


----------



## OldChipper

blackhat said:


> Completely wrong. Who is "we"? Are you under the impression that USADA brought a case to DOJ? They opened their own investigation, of a different set of charges (as opposed to sanctions), with their own burden of proof.
> 
> Don't be "troubled". At least not by this fabrication.


"We" is the world-wide conspiracy to "get" LA of course! 

But seriously, the "we" was somewhat figurative. No I don't think USADA brought the case to DoJ, but I believe they certainly had some involvement with it, no?


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> There appears to be a lot of confusion generated by the UCI smokescreen. For a good review of the fact I suggest reading USADA's letter to Pat
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/102034896/42-2-USADA-letter-to-Pat-McQuaid-dated-26-July-2012


I don't think all of us are confused does the USADA have jurisdiction? Yeah. Does the UCI? Yeah they do too actually. If you read the full WADA rules both actually have the jurisdiction to bring forth doping cases, the problem lies in the fact that it does not specify if one or the other has primary authority (except of course in cases where a fed refuses to bring a case. Then in theory the UCI has the authority to pursue a case the fed dropped as they have to responsibility to ensure national federation compliance.)

This is why I am curious to see the USADA's response to the latest missive which brings up the specter of going before CAS to settle the issue once and for all.

I do find your inference that the code is designed with UCI doping complicity in mind disturbing. If this was the case then it would not have ultimate doping authority over the sport, and it does as it has the responsibility to enforce National Fed compliance. The rules are written as they are because technically tomorrow the National Federations could abolish the UCI. The UCI is actually a creation of the key National Cycling Federations. If anything the rules are written as they are because the powers that be know that if you push the National Federations too hard the Sport will Balkanize back to where it was back in the day, not because people think the UCI is the fox guarding the hen house.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

OldChipper said:


> "We" is the world-wide conspiracy to "get" LA of course!
> 
> But seriously, the "we" was somewhat figurative. No I don't think USADA brought the case to DoJ, but I believe they certainly had some involvement with it, no?


I does appear that USADA assisted the Fed's in their case. 

Various witnesses have been talking with USADA for many years. I know of one from late 2005 and Vaughter has said he talked to them in 2006. USADA was able to not only introduce these witness to the Feds but also facilitate communication with multiple international agencies that they normally would not have a connection with.


----------



## blackhat

OldChipper said:


> "We" is the world-wide conspiracy to "get" LA of course!
> 
> But seriously, the "we" was somewhat figurative. No I don't think USADA brought the case to DoJ, but I believe they certainly had some involvement with it, no?


I would guess that they may have been interviewed but it was a different set of allegations well beyond USADA's area of activity. You probably already understand the difference, but it would be like the State declining to pursue embezzlement charges against you for a sum of money you stole from your employer and your employer taking some sort of professional action against you. Separate entities with different interests and burdens of proof.


----------



## rook

badge118 said:


> I don't think all of us are confused does the USADA have jurisdiction? Yeah. Does the UCI? Yeah they do too actually. If you read the full WADA rules both actually have the jurisdiction to bring for doping cases, the problem lies in the fact that it does not specify if one or the other has primary authority (except of course in cases where a fed refuses to bring a case. Then in theory the UCI has the authority to pursue a case the fed dropped as they have to responsibility to ensure national federation compliance.)
> 
> This is why I am curious to see the USADA's response to the latest missive which brings up the specter of going before CAS to settle the issue once and for all.




Even if there was any indication that the UCI has some sort of shared jurisdiction, which I don't believe that they would, there already has been overwhelming precedent set already that the independent national anti-doping agencies have ultimate authority.


----------



## badge118

rook said:


> Even if there was any indication that the UCI has some sort of shared jurisdiction, which I don't believe that they would, there already has been overwhelming precedent set already that the independent national anti-doping agencies have ultimate authority.


Precedent and lack of challenge are not the same. If you precedent was true then Valverde would not have had a world wide ban and Cantador would have been in the 2012 Tdf. The fact the UCI could force a case and Trump such "ultimate authority" pretty much proves your assertion false on its face.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Precedent and lack of challenge are not the same. If you precedent was true then Valverde would not have had a world wide ban and Cantador would have been in the 2012 Tdf. The fact the UCI could force a case and Trump such "ultimate authority" pretty much proves your assertion false on its face.


Do you have an example? A ban by one WADA entity should be honored by all. If CONI bans an athlete then he is banned world wide. Do you have an example of this NOT happening? 

Has the UCI ever tried to take over a case from an ADA? The rules are clear that USADA can pursue this. McQuaid has spent the last 2 years saying that this was USADA's case. USADA's letter to McQuaid spells out very clearly why they are right. 
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102124068/102034896-42-2-USADA-Letter-to-Pat-McQuaid-Dated-26-July-2012


----------



## jorgy

Local Hero said:


> Falsetti,
> 
> One more thing: You talked about _non-grand jury testimony._ When pressed on this you said that some witnesses volunteered to meet with investigators. Were there affidavits or anything under oath?
> 
> We should be careful to distinguish TESTIMONY from voluntary statements made to investigators.


It's my understanding that the witnesses will have to testify _in person_ at the arbitration hearing. AFAIK, there is nothing to compel them to testify as there is with a grand jury.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you have an example? A ban by one WADA entity should be honored by all. If CONI bans an athlete then he is banned world wide. Do you have an example of this NOT happening?
> 
> Has the UCI ever tried to take over a case from an ADA? The rules are clear that USADA can pursue this. McQuaid has spent the last 2 years saying that this was USADA's case. USADA's letter to McQuaid spells out very clearly why they are right.
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/102124068/102034896-42-2-USADA-Letter-to-Pat-McQuaid-Dated-26-July-2012


You are missing my point. The Spanish Fed, allegedly an ultimate authority refused to open cases against both Valverde and in the end cleared Contador. If they were an ULTIMATE authority that would have been the end of it.

Read the WADA Protocols and the UCI rules please. The authority of the Sports governing body is pretty damn clear. Unlike criminal law there is little precedent. However when u read the WADA rules the UCI seems very similar to the Department of Justice and the Feds the States. As such both have the authority to open cases. The question is does the UCI have the authority to take jurisdiction from a fed and if so under what circumstances. According to the WADA Protocols this is neither permitted NOR denyed by the rules, it is uncharted territory.

I am not saying the UCI should be able to take jurisdiction. I am saying that there is nothing in the rules that specifically prohibits it. The fact WADA hasn't stepped in to say their rules do so is telling. As such until CAS rules imo the UCI case, regardless of potential motive, simply based on the technicalities in the rules, has a valid argument. The USADA also has a valid argument. Guess what though, its because of issues like this that CAS and WADA exist. Since WADA isn't weighing in that leaves CAS.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> You are missing my point. The Spanish Fed, allegedly an ultimate authority refused to open cases against both Valverde and in the end cleared Contador. If they were an ULTIMATE authority that would have been the end of it.
> 
> Read the WADA Protocols and the UCI rules please. The authority of the Sports governing body is pretty damn clear. Unlike criminal law there is little precedent. However when u read the WADA rules the UCI seems very similar to the Department of Justice and the Feds the States. As such both have the authority to open cases. The question is does the UCI have the authority to take jurisdiction from a fed and if so under what circumstances. According to the WADA Protocols this is neither permitted NOR denyed by the rules, it is uncharted territory.
> 
> I am not saying the UCI should be able to take jurisdiction. I am saying that there is nothing in the rules that specifically prohibits it. The fact WADA hasn't stepped in to say their rules do so is telling. As such until CAS rules imo the UCI case, regardless of potential motive, simply based on the technicalities in the rules, has a valid argument. The USADA also has a valid argument. Guess what though, its because of issues like this that CAS and WADA exist. Since WADA isn't weighing in that leaves CAS.


Sorry, I am confused. 

The Spanish Fed is not the ultimate authority. They have to answer to WADA. When RFEC ignored the WADA code and did not sanction Contador WADA appealed to CAS and he was sanctioned. 

The CAS case for Valverde was largely focused on if the blood bag and DNA sample was enough for a sanction. It was. The CONI jurisdictional issue was largely a smokescreen by Valverde

http://estaticos.elmundo.es/documentos/2010/05/31/comunicado_valverde.pdf

Has anything like this happened before? I cannot think of an example of the UCI stepping in, especially as they have said for 2 years that this is USADA's case. The sudden change in their position is an attempt to spin public opinion and scare witnesses. 

If the UCI thought they had a case they would take it to CAS, not to the media


----------



## badge118

Sorry when I used the term Ultimate it was in direct response to someone who stated the national Fed is the Ultimate authorituy, his word not mine and it gave me big hole to drive through. 

Has the UCI done it before in this manner? Nope. Do they have the authority to? yep they sure do, at least atm in writing. WADA gives the Governing bodies the ultimate resonsibility to ensure that the national Feds are enforcing the rules and protecting due process. The UCI to formalize their authority has the following in their Rules. 



> Anti-doping violations where no Sample collection is involved
> 
> 10. *The UCI has jurisdiction* for and these Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to any anti-doping violation committed
> by a License-Holder where no Sample collection is involved and that is discovered:
> 
> (i) by the UCI, by one of its constituents or member Federations, by one of their officials, officers,
> staff members, members, License-Holders, or any other body or individual that is subject to the
> regulations of the UCI or one of its member Federations; or
> 
> (ii) by a body or individual that is not an Anti-Doping Organization. Discovery means the finding of elements that turn out to be evidence for facts that apparently constitute an anti-doping rule violation, regardless of the Anti-Doping Organization who qualifies that evidence
> as such.
> 
> 11. If an anti-doping violation where no Sample collection is involved is discovered by another Anti-
> Doping Organization, the anti-doping rules of that Anti-Doping Organization shall apply.
> However, if the violation is discovered by the International Olympic Committee or the International
> Paralympic Committee, results management and the conduct of hearings shall be referred to the UCI
> as far as sanctions beyond Disqualification from the event or the results of the event.
> 
> 12. Where apparent evidence for the same anti-doping violation is found by persons or bodies referred toboth in article 10 and article 11 or when such evidence is found by persons or bodies referred to in article 10 whereas another Anti-Doping Organization having jurisdiction over the Person concerned under the Code opens result management or hearing process based upon such evidence, *UCI may decide* to leave the case to the Anti-Doping Organization concerned.


The first bit is clear. The last bolded bit basically only applies to the Non-US Fed holders. 



> Default jurisdiction of the UCI
> 17. Where a National Anti-Doping Organization having initiated and directed Sample collection or which has discovered an anti-doping rule violation where no Sample collection is involved does not have the authority to conduct results management under any applicable rule, then results management shall default to UCI and hearings will be conducted as stipulated in these Anti-Doping Rules.


So technically, according to the Rules which WADA apparently sees in compliance with their code, the UCI CAN assert jurisdiction. Have they before in this manner? Nope. Is there potentially an agenda behind it? Maybe, not speculating. That said is this something that they technically can do and that the USADA would likely have to challenge to CAS to not create a quagmire that would let LA slip free? I would say also yes. All Tagart needs to do is swallow his pride, file with CAS and win. Unless he has fears that CAS would side with the UCI and take the case away from him, at least for everyoine but LA and that is the problem. If he loses (and it appears according by the letter of the rule he could) lose authority over JB, Ferrari and the Spaniards, then his conspiracy case goes out the window. If that case goes out the window much if not all of the LA case goes out the window as it hinges on the conspiracy.

My guess is that the UCI is using as their foundation that it was the US Federal Gov't that actually discovered the evidence and that this investigation thus makes things fall under 10ii. As such they have an option to assert jurisdiction as some of the defendant's involved are members of other National Federations. The USADA to fight that would have to make a case that they would have inevitably come to the same conclusions and found their evidence without the Federal Investigation, sitting in on interviews etc. to defeat this logic. However the place to win is in front of CAS.

I would rather see the USADA say "fine, you want to go to CAS, lets go to CAS", win there and then proceed. If they don't and they still proceed it could well give everyone involved a serious leg up before either the AAA to throw out the Conspiracy charges, making them look like the evil persecutors LA is trying to make them look like, or causing a potential complete defeat before a CAS appeal later, which has the same action PLUS the potential of over turning all penalties. Slow and steady wins the race at this point I think but after what the USADA feels is over a decade of getting buggered they do not seem to have a lot of patience left.

In reading why certain evidence was not permitted at the Contador CAS hearing it was all about minor technicalities just like these. Hell they gave AC his wierd "ban" using a rationalization that he never presented as a defense because it was the only way to ban him while avoiding all the issues they tossed on technicalities (the idea that it came from a transfusion due to plasticizers found in the blood etc).

Due to this it would not be out of bounds then to fear that if the USADA just proceeds as is that CAS would later say due to these UCI rules the USADA proceeded without jurisdiction and so the penalties get over turned.

It is a right mess, but I honestly think only WADA playing hard ball on the UCI or going before CAS is going to solve it. Just take a deep breath, a Prozac, go to CAS and then proceed with what CAS says they can.


----------



## cda 455

badge118 said:


> So then all of the top olympic athletes this year are doping because the finalists certainly have at least 5% better times etc than many of their competitors. OR such comparison from one specific athlete to another specific athlete is bad science based purely on performance is bad science. Yes their are limits but the limits change based on technology, training methods etc.
> 
> Once the sub 10 second 100 meter, the sub 4 minute mile were all thought to be impossible barriers to beat. They were and are routinely now. Sorry but you keep ignoring the fact of all the other elite athletes in this week alone that have beaten other elite athletes by at least 5% performance wise. such a comparison is only valid scientifically if you have a quantifiable baseline, account for all the X factors and more that I noted above etc. Simply because one athlete beats another by X% means nothing tbh.
> 
> Also %'s of difference mean different things is context. Look at the long jump example given. Seems crazy. Look at that same difference in terms of 100 meter sprints however and suddenly the difference means much less. Look at it in terms of total watts. Two 70 kg riders. On producing 6.2 and another 6.7. The first is generating 434, the other 469. Now things don't look so odd do they? And guess what even though they don't look so odd the result means jack all as there is no accepted control to put them next to that does not involve an estimate given without foundation by a dead guy.
> _*
> Sorry as I said he doped*_ but this is crap and not evidence.



What's interesting is that you just torpedoed your entire good poast with the first part of your closing statement. 

Since you believe he doped, his 10% increase in performance has to be voided because of the doping; right?



I'm just going by what the article said and what you poasted.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Snipped for brevity.



All your questions are answered here. 
102034896 42 2 USADA Letter to Pat McQuaid Dated 26 July 2012


It is odd that the UCI is not even threatening to take this to CAS. They are the correct forum to decide this and have a provision for rapid review and decisions (If the respondents cooperate)


----------



## badge118

Actually the UCI stated inb the 8/3 letter they would be happy to go to CAS actually. 

Here is my issue. What I see as a hypocrisy to an extent. Everyone seems happy to say "the rules say the USADA can do this or do that so stfu." When the rules as written say that the UCI can do something though suddenly excuses come out of the wood work.

The USADA does have an argument. The UCI has an argument based on the rules as well. That is why CAS is there. If you think the USADA can just say "fff the rules" arbitrarily without a ruling from CAS under these circumstance, there really is no point in continuing the conversation because most of the USADA argument is based on "prior public statements" not the rules. I do not give a **** about statements. I care about rules. That seems to be a divide that can not be bridged.

I find it teling you do not address the UCI rules at all tbh.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Actually the UCI stated inb the 8/3 letter they would be happy to go to CAS actually.
> 
> Here is my issue. What I see as a hypocrisy to an extent. Everyone seems happy to say "the rules say the USADA can do this or do that so stfu." When the rules as written say that the UCI can do something though suddenly excuses come out of the wood work.
> 
> The USADA does have an argument. The UCI has an argument based on the rules as well. That is why CAS is there. If you think the USADA can just say "fff the rules" arbitrarily without a ruling from CAS under these circumstance, there really is no point in continuing the conversation because most of the USADA argument is based on "prior public statements" not the rules. I do not give a **** about statements. I care about rules. That seems to be a divide that can not be bridged.
> 
> I find it teling you do not address the UCI rules at all tbh.


Actually the rules are address quite clearly in the USADA letter. There is very little that I could add that is not covered in the letter. 

WADA was set up for these types of issues. In fact it was the UCI's attempt to ignore the Festia affair that started WADA. It was clear the Fed's were too biased to consistently sanction the same athletes that made them money. The UCI is trying to go back to the old days where dopers were let off. 

For 2 years the UCI has said over and over this is a USADA case. The process has been followed multiple times. Why the sudden change? Why didn't the UCI try to do the same for the Basso or Scarponi' cases? 

It is rather obvious what is happening. UCI is trying to protect their ass.


----------



## badge118

The thing is that they don't address the rules. What they say is "you said this in the past" and "the rules are set up because governing bodies can't be trusted" BUT they do not address the specific issues in the UCI anti-doping that allow them to assert jurisdiction in this case. They simply throw mud to avoid that issue. WADA also, if that part of the USADA letter could be supported by the rules, would have stepped in but they have not. 

Yes for 2 years they have said it was a USADA case. UNTIL it went beyond LA and people governed under other Federations, which was necessary for USADA to make their conspiracy case work. There the rules change. Just a US guy on non-analytical case? yours. Hmmm people from other feds as well? different rules. This is a fine point but one people are trying to ignore. T%he rules I posted are pretty clear on it. yet again you don't address those rules in anyway, neiother really does the USADA in their letter. They simply point to other rules that at this point are no longer arguably applicable because they cast a net that went well outside their Federations jurisdiction. The way the UCI rules are written it would be like a cop in Philly trying to investigate a crim in NYC without the permission of the NYC police or the Feds.

Just a final thought. I honestly do not think this has anything to do with the UCI not wanting to see dopers punished etc., as much as the USADA is trying to paint it that way. They are not trying to protect their own ass in that regard. It has EVERYTHING to do with control and power. The UCI was under pressure from the Biggest race organizers. They get that settled and then they are looking at a possible break away league made of the top teams (slightly reduced now since the Giro organization agreed to revenue sharing so now it looks like one of the main incentives can be going by the way side if Le Tour and Vuelta follow suit), now in their paranoia and desire to exert control they want to show that they also have authority via the rules over the national Feds and theire ADA's.

That said even if they were trying to protect their own ass the way CAS works is on their side unless the USADA plays the game. USADA is taking a BIG risk pursuing the case without getting the clearly written UCI (and WADA supported) rules out of the way. The rules are pretty damn clear that in a case like this, whether they have done it before or not, the UCI can assert jurisdiction. You may have ethical issues with the rules but ethics and the letter of the law are two different things until an appelate body rules on that point and clarifies the issue.

If the UCI is indeed trying to cover it's own ass and the USADA can make theis case CAS will tell the UCI to pound sand. The UCI even invited the USADA to do so for goodness sakes. We can all sit here and say the UCI is beign self serving and trying to cover it's own butt. That in order to do so they are willing to let a doper get off. However as the rules are written, and again WADA approved, they are allowed to do precisely what they are doing as the case today is far different than the one the USADA was publically pursuing last year. Once they went conspiracy with people outside the US Fderation new rules apply and the only body that can over rule these regulations is CAS. The USADA can not arbitrarily do so and if they do I think it is actually playing into LA's hands more than if they simply filed with CAS and got a ruling. Unless of course you are concerned the USADA is wrong and CAS would side with the UCI?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The rules are clear, the UCI is wrong

The experts on this, WADA, say the UCI is out of line 

http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/w...risdiction-in-us-postal-service-cycling-case/



> as the independent agency responsible for leading the fight against doping in sport WADA has urged the UCI to reconsider its position and provide “all support to USADA in the conduct of this case, including all documents required by them”.





> article 15.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code (Code) gives USADA the jurisdiction to bring a case against the six individuals involved, and that* the UCI had misinterpreted its own rules in light of the Code*.





> Article 15.3 states that the Anti-Doping Organization (ADO) “which discovered the violation” must have results management authority, and not the ADO which discovered the first shred of evidence which then led to the discovery of violations.





> there is no provision within the Code that allows the UCI to interfere with the USADA case based on the UCI’s own rules.





> nowhere in the Code is an ADO required to “turn over its witnesses and evidence in advance of the arbitration process”, as the UCI claimed in its letters.


----------



## cda 455

badge118 said:


> The thing is that they don't address the rules. What they say is "you said this in the past" and "the rules are set up because governing bodies can't be trusted" BUT they do not address the specific issues in the UCI anti-doping that allow them to assert jurisdiction in this case. They simply throw mud to avoid that issue. WADA also, if that part of the USADA letter could be supported by the rules, would have stepped in but they have not.
> 
> Yes for 2 years they have said it was a USADA case. UNTIL it went beyond LA and people governed under other Federations, which was necessary for USADA to make their conspiracy case work. There the rules change. Just a US guy on non-analytical case? yours. Hmmm people from other feds as well? different rules. This is a fine point but one people are trying to ignore. T%he rules I posted are pretty clear on it. yet again you don't address those rules in anyway, neiother really does the USADA in their letter. They simply point to other rules that at this point are no longer arguably applicable because they cast a net that went well outside their Federations jurisdiction. The way the UCI rules are written it would be like a cop in Philly trying to investigate a crim in NYC without the permission of the NYC police or the Feds.
> 
> Just a final thought. I honestly do not think this has anything to do with the UCI not wanting to see dopers punished etc., as much as the USADA is trying to paint it that way. They are not trying to protect their own ass in that regard. It has EVERYTHING to do with control and power. The UCI was under pressure from the Biggest race organizers. They get that settled and then they are looking at a possible break away league made of the top teams (slightly reduced now since the Giro organization agreed to revenue sharing so now it looks like one of the main incentives can be going by the way side if Le Tour and Vuelta follow suit), now in their paranoia and desire to exert control they want to show that they also have authority via the rules over the national Feds and theire ADA's.
> 
> That said even if they were trying to protect their own ass the way CAS works is on their side unless the USADA plays the game. USADA is taking a BIG risk pursuing the case without getting the clearly written UCI (and WADA supported) rules out of the way. The rules are pretty damn clear that in a case like this, whether they have done it before or not, the UCI can assert jurisdiction. You may have ethical issues with the rules but ethics and the letter of the law are two different things until an appelate body rules on that point and clarifies the issue.
> 
> If the UCI is indeed trying to cover it's own ass and the USADA can make theis case CAS will tell the UCI to pound sand. The UCI even invited the USADA to do so for goodness sakes. We can all sit here and say the UCI is beign self serving and trying to cover it's own butt. That in order to do so they are willing to let a doper get off. However as the rules are written, and again WADA approved, they are allowed to do precisely what they are doing as the case today is far different than the one the USADA was publically pursuing last year. Once they went conspiracy with people outside the US Fderation new rules apply and the only body that can over rule these regulations is CAS. The USADA can not arbitrarily do so and if they do I think it is actually playing into LA's hands more than if they simply filed with CAS and got a ruling. Unless of course you are concerned the USADA is wrong and CAS would side with the UCI?



Repp'ed for using paragraphs   !


----------



## godot

Sounds like WADA thinks the UCI's latest request has no merit.

WADA chief rebukes McQuaid’s attempt to assume Armstrong jurisdiction

USADA Does Have Jurisdiction Over Armstrong Case, Says WADA | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## cda 455

godot said:


> Sounds like WADA thinks the UCI's latest request has no merit.
> 
> WADA chief rebukes McQuaid’s attempt to assume Armstrong jurisdiction
> 
> USADA Does Have Jurisdiction Over Armstrong Case, Says WADA | Cyclingnews.com




Take is correct.


----------



## badge118

Well first we have the problem that you again dodge. WADA has not sounded off. They approved the UCI anti-doping rules. With that VERY important part in mind here is subsection 15.3 that would be relevant here due to the fact that this is a non-analyitical finding....

15.3 says this "(or, if no Sample collection is involved the organization which
discovered the violation)."

Now please refer back to the UCI where they have the right to assert jurisdiction IF the angency that discovered the violation is NOT an ADA, which this is clearly he case. USADA would have NO case if not for their participation in the Federal Case. The Federal Case found the evidence of the violations. The USADA followed u on their initial work. This piggy backing is what makes the UCI rule I noted previously relevant. Without this the UCI would have no grounds. With it they do, unless the USADA can prove that they would have been able to bring the case without the Federal investigation, which they have been invited to do by the UCI.

Why does the UCI have the authority to make this rule, and they do....well this is also there under 15.3...Comment to article 15.3.1



> No absolute
> rule is established for managing results
> and conducting hearings where a
> National Anti-Doping Organization tests
> a foreign national Athlete over whom it
> would have had no jurisdiction but for
> the Athlete's presence in the National
> Anti-Doping Organization's country.
> Under this Article, it is left to the
> International Federation to determine
> under its own rules whether, for
> example, management of the case
> should be referred to the Athlete's
> National Anti-Doping Organization,
> remain with the Anti-Doping
> Organization that collected the
> Sample, *or be taken over by the
> International Federation.*


As such the UCI had the authority to write a rule that would in certain circumstances give them and NOT the USADA the authority. Again if it was just LA, no way to do it BUT since the USADA went after other Fed's peeps the WADA code gives the UCI to make the rule they are now exercising.

Again the USADA has been invited to go to CAS to prove the UCI wrong. Right now rather than doing that they are basically doing exactly what LA did, trying to throw stones at the UCI in the court of public opinion rather than using the appropiate channels. I find the role reversal ironic really.

In closing. Doc, from an ethical point of view I tend to lean in your direction, really I do. We disagree as to why the UCI is exercising this rule but in either case it has little to do with justice and everything to do with power. That said the USADA is basically trying to paint the UCI as not having the authority when they do in a PR war, the UCI though from a technical point of view is in the right until CAS rules otherwise or until it becomes to hot for them to try and exercise the authority they legally have in this case. For CAS to do that the USADA would need to prove the UCI is engaging in a cover up and obstructing the process, hard to do, maybe impossible, which is why they are engaging in this very blatant PR campaign in the hopes they back down under pressure from exercising the authority they have been granted by WADA and the code.


----------



## badge118

cda 455 said:


> Take is correct.


Which I find wierd because their own rules state..

No absolute rule is established for managing results
and conducting hearings where a National Anti-Doping Organization tests
a foreign national Athlete over whom it would have had no jurisdiction but for
the Athlete's presence in the National Anti-Doping Organization's country.
Under this Article, it is left to the International Federation to determine
under its own rules whether, for example, management of the case
should be referred to the Athlete's National Anti-Doping Organization,
remain with the Anti-Doping Organization that collected the
Sample, or be taken over by the International Federation.

So while I would concur entirely that the USADA would have jurisdiction over LA I think it clear the UCI could have a rule that gives them jurisdiction over the other people involved that are members of other federations. 

So how can they state that there is "no provision" within its rules "that allows the UCI to interfere with the USADA case" when the above is in the code? I also find it wierd that WADA, which reviews the rules of the International Federations to ensure compliance with the Code, never raised an issue with the rule that the UCI is now attempting to exercise. If I am tbh this entire thing is starting to make me look at the process not as a "movement" or a "regime" but rather a factiaonalized bunch of power players that are less interested in cleaning up sport and more interested in backing the plays of those who atm seem to share the same agenda.


----------



## SicBith

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The rules are clear, the UCI is wrong
> 
> The experts on this, WADA, say the UCI is out of line
> 
> http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/w...risdiction-in-us-postal-service-cycling-case/


so where does that leave USADA when the UCI comes out and says we discovered the EPO positive from the Swiss tour? hmmm....


----------



## Chris-X

*I can't tell....*



SicBith said:


> so where does that leave USADA when the UCI comes out and says we discovered the EPO positive from the Swiss tour? hmmm....


if you're being serious or not?

The UCI in this scenario would've just "discovered" the positive?

So they take control of the case under this scenario and then drop it to cover their own as$es as it would be outside of the SOL?

Are you joking?


----------



## AdamM

This is really an amazing case, because there seems to be no limit to the leverage Armstrong is able to bring. As USADA points out, the UCI request appears to have been drafted by Armstrong's legal team. Little attempt to even make things appear arms length, just raw in your face power play. With the UCI being all in and appearing willing to absorb all the bad press and even a break from WADA to cover for Armstrong, it's hard to predict where this one goes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

inrng : the uci vs president mcquaid

Inner Ring has a good overview



> the UCI has not played its hand well, seemingly confusing the fate of a few officials with the whole governing body.* Rather than upholding its own rules, it seems to have allowed the President to launch a crusade that looks all too personal*. Worse, in recent weeks all the letters and emails appeared to have backfired, putting the UCI at a greater disadvantage. Rather than obtaining jurisdiction over the case, *the UCI gets humiliated in public after being told to go back and read their own rulebook by outsiders*.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

USADA Reply for Dismissal

USADA continues to pound the UCI and Lance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Interesting. Expect that person was lawyer



> I can share with you that a USADA representative met with an individual close to Mr. Landis (an individual who has incidentally never been a UCI license holder or official) weeks before the April 30 email was sent and in that meeting USADA received much of the same information from this intermediary that was subsequently contained in the email. USADA also met with Mr. Landis about ten days before the email was sent. Before the email was sent USADA had met with several others with relevant information


UCI is scared of CAS


> If the parties are truly interested in an efficient, fair and just result based on the evidence, as USADA is, then this proposal would immediately place the case in the hands of neutral CAS arbitrators who could quickly decide it.





> Of course, the UCI is unaware of these meetings because the UCI has never met with Mr. Landis or any of USADA’s many other witnesses concerning their observations and the UCI has apparently never conducted even the beginning of an investigation regarding Mr. Landis’s evidence or the evidence from any other cyclist on the U.S. Postal Service Cycling team at anytime......
> 
> The utter lack of investigation into the facts by the UCI lays bare the absurdity of UCI’s“discovery” claim under Art. 10 of the UCI ADR.......
> 
> in your own words UCI claims both to have “discovered” a violation and to not know whether a violation occurred. This is exactly the sort of “Never, Never Land” created by the UCI’s nonsensical discovery rule and it well illustrates why that rule cannot possibly be enforceable under the Code.


----------



## MarkS

Doctor Falsetti said:


> USADA Reply for Dismissal
> 
> USADA continues to pound the UCI and Lance.


This is a very simple case insofar as the federal district court is concerned. There is an arbitration agreement and any challenges to the scope of the arbitration are to be presented to the arbitrator. As I have written before, federal law as interpreted by the Supreme Court gives great deference to arbitration agreements and the federal courts will not get involved in an arguably arbitrable dispute before it is arbitrated. I predict that it will take the judge little time to dismiss the case outright or stay it pending arbitration.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> if you're being serious or not?
> 
> The UCI in this scenario would've just "discovered" the positive?
> 
> So they take control of the case under this scenario and then drop it to cover their own as$es as it would be outside of the SOL?
> 
> Are you joking?


Dude I am not saying the rule is right but under 15.3.1 of the WADA code, the International Fed taking responsibility for the case is permissable. Yell at WADA for being stupid and writing that addition to the rule, not the UCI for trying to exercise.

This is another reason why I think there should just be one anti-doping authority. Ffff the national feds, ffff the UCI. These organizations should just be in charge of testing and stuff, basically they would be the cops. Then WADA or a new organization should deal with being the prosecutors and the Judiciary. No more Valverde's or AC's where local judges or tweets from the Prime Minister mess with cases, no more letters from Congressman questioning funding etc.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

WADA Letter to UCI

WADA's letter to the UCI is an interesting read..... especially the last part where they point out the UCI is ignoring it's rules just for Lance


----------



## badge118

I just wish the letter would address the part of 15.3.1 which makes things far less clear. It almost seems like they wrote a rule that would allow an International Fed to step in if a National Fed tried to monkey with the system BUT didn't want to come right out and say it. So they now have a rule that the UCI can use to assert authority over the foreign defendants, but WADA doesn't want to address it because they don't want to come out and say "well all National Feds are not created equal we trust the USADA but not X and the rule was really there just to address X."


----------



## SicBith

Chris-X said:


> if you're being serious or not?
> 
> The UCI in this scenario would've just "discovered" the positive?
> 
> So they take control of the case under this scenario and then drop it to cover their own as$es as it would be outside of the SOL?
> 
> Are you joking?


OK you understand my point. Now fast forward to the 2009 and 2010 bio passport testing which the UCI handled. What happens when they use those test to take control of the case? 
It seems with the rules that DF quoted the UCI does have a argument to take control of the case as their investigation into bio passport irregularities on a few as to yet unnamed athletes could include LA, and it certainly happened before the USADA investigation.


----------



## badge118

SicBith said:


> OK you understand my point. Now fast forward to the 2009 and 2010 bio passport testing which the UCI handled. What happens when they use those test to take control of the case?
> It seems with the rules that DF quoted the UCI does have a argument to take control of the case as their investigation into bio passport irregularities on a few as to yet unnamed athletes could include LA, and it certainly happened before the USADA investigation.


This whole mess is a result of the Balkanized nature of sport. The UCI was really the only body in cycling to do a global program like the Bio-passport. Also certain Federations have proven that the UCI and/or WADA need to be in a position to say "hey there, that guy needs a ban." Because of this we have the addition to 15.3.1.

The problem is you can't really write a rule that says "The International body can take jurisdiction of a case if they arbitrarily think the national body is shady." So while the intent of the rules may be for this "shady" situation, the way it is worded technically gives the UCI the justification.

This is I think one of the reasons WADA goes to the trouble to talk about how the USADA has always been in compliance. If it was just a matter of a clearly written rule this would be unnecessary. However the rule, in so far as the Non-USA license holders is concerned, is not so black and white. 

The last edition of the WADA code is dated 2009. Anyone want to bet we have a 2013 edition due to this head ache?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

SicBith said:


> OK you understand my point. Now fast forward to the 2009 and 2010 bio passport testing which the UCI handled. What happens when they use those test to take control of the case?
> It seems with the rules that DF quoted the UCI does have a argument to take control of the case as their investigation into bio passport irregularities on a few as to yet unnamed athletes could include LA, and it certainly happened before the USADA investigation.


I doubt it will mean anything. Multiple former teammates and staff spoke to USADA about the USPS doping program in 2006. Landis was a tipping point but it had been going on for a while


----------



## LostViking

Wow - impressive response by the USADA! Really points out how the UCI has not been serious about dopeing and is in fact is attempting to sweep this under the carpet as well. If this has turned into a pissing match - gotta chalk this round up for the USADA!

How much you want to bet that Lance and Co. have told the UCI that if they go down - they're taking the UCI with them?


----------



## The Tedinator

Holy gawd! There must be some good booze flowing in London! My 4th grade grandson can compose sentences better than this!

Fat Pat Letter to Bock


----------



## goloso

LostViking said:


> Wow - impressive response by the USADA! Really points out how the UCI has not been serious about dopeing and is in fact is attempting to sweep this under the carpet as well. If this has turned into a pissing match - gotta chalk this round up for the USADA!
> 
> How much you want to bet that Lance and Co. have told the UCI that if they go down - they're taking the UCI with them?


Seems obvious now...


----------



## badge118

I honestly don't think so. The WADA rules not only open the door but the UCI rule being used was declared in compliance by WADA in 2010. Long story short WADA wrote a rule with cases where the National ADO choses not to take action but failed to look at the potential consequence when the International Federation wants to fundamentally change the nature of the Sport. 

For many years the UCI has been trying to change their position in the Sport. Rather than their traditional position of just doing the scut work the National Feds don't want to be bothered with, the UCI wants to be what they see as a "true" governing body alla FIFA or F1. This is just another battle the UCI has decided to fight in furtherance of this goal. First they picked a fight with the big three race organizers, then they started fighting with the riders and team owners organizations when rumors leaked of a proposed World Series of Cycling, now the UCI wants to stamp their authority on the National Federations and the ADOs.

This is a series of battles that is not going to end anytime soon.


----------



## 95zpro

It appears that the UCI has an obvious bias in this case, and as such WADA and I would say CAS is clearly stepping in to defend USADA's actions in regards to this case. At this point it does not really matter what rules are etc., the UCI cannot be trusted to impartially have jurisdiction over this case and handle the evidence that has been collected thus far. 
I am interested to see if the fallout establishes the creation of the 'breakaway' league that has been proposed so far with a new cycling governing body. Either way it looks like the UCI might not survive this one and their credibility has taken a huge hit...


----------



## badge118

On another thread I quoted an interview with the expert the USADA has called regarding Armstrong's blood values. He was talking about the Contador case. He essentially stated that when you go before CAS they are concerned about the rules as written and the evidence, they are not about the truth. Whether the UCI can be "trusted" is a matter of truth and while the USADA and WADA may make such arguments in press releases and letters, CAS is interested in rules and in evidence that rules were violated. Whether CAS would side with WADA or not is far from certain


----------



## cda 455

goloso said:


> Seems obvious now...



Right-click; save  !


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> On another thread I quoted an interview with the expert the USADA has called regarding Armstrong's blood values. He was talking about the Contador case. He essentially stated that when you go before CAS they are concerned about the rules as written and the evidence, they are not about the truth. Whether the UCI can be "trusted" is a matter of truth and while the USADA and WADA may make such arguments in press releases and letters, CAS is interested in rules and in evidence that rules were violated. Whether CAS would side with WADA or not is far from certain


Then this should be taken to CAS immediately instead of filing incomprehensible letters in a court that has no jurisdiction over the dispute. 

Fat Pat Letter to Howman

Fat Pat Letter to Bock

USADA has some great evidence on the cover up of the 2001 ToS positive, more then just what Armstrong told teammates.


----------



## David Loving

Dwayne Barry said:


> Wouldn't that be a violation of due process?
> 
> Maybe Armstrong could agree to it but I would think it would be against the rules otherwise to try Armstrong in the court of public opinion?


how would that be a violation of due process? of course it is not.


----------



## Fogdweller

trailrunner68 said:


> It is also the UCI demanding the USADA stop the case. The words are right there in the letter.
> 
> I wonder what McQuaid sent to USA Cycling. You know the weasels there will try to help their buddy Armstrong.


If I may correct you... it's "weisels", not "weasels". :thumbsup:


----------



## Fogdweller

blackhat said:


> LA's a US athlete. As such, per WADA, he's governed by his national federation which is USADA.
> 
> You've heard this before, repeatedly, but he was aware of and helped write the rules he's now complaining about.


It actually has to do with which organization a rider holds their license with, Armstrong just happened to use USA Cycling. The Chicken used Mexico, Ullrich used the Swiss and many use Monaco.


----------



## badge118

Fogdweller said:


> It actually has to do with which organization a rider holds their license with, Armstrong just happened to use USA Cycling. The Chicken used Mexico, Ullrich used the Swiss and many use Monaco.


And if you actually read the letters McQuaid is saying that it is the conspiracy charges and the involvement of the foreigners that lets him do this. No conspiracy involving the foreigners and then there is no right. That is specifically what the WADA approved UCI rule and the 15.3.1 WADA rule say as well.


----------



## Chris-X

badge118 said:


> On another thread I quoted an interview with the expert the USADA has called regarding Armstrong's blood values. He was talking about the Contador case. He essentially stated that when you go before CAS they are concerned about the rules as written and the evidence, they are not about the truth. Whether the UCI can be "trusted" is a matter of truth and while the USADA and WADA may make such arguments in press releases and letters, CAS is interested in rules and in evidence that rules were violated. Whether CAS would side with WADA or not is far from certain


Again, coming from a Police Officer, this line of argument is strange to say the least.

Isn't it presupposed by everyone that the procudures followed by the authorities help ensure that the proper result, ie the truth, is arrived at?

If the truth isn't arrived at, wouldn't everyone agree that the procedures should be overhauled and those implementing those procedures removed from power?

Why you continually play devil's advocate and advance what are largely defense arguments, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is beyond me.

I appreciate that you recognize the right of an accused person to defend themselves vigorously, but your incessant, trivial, and spurious arguments go way beyond an accused person defending themself.

If Armstrong does escape sanction it will be because a corrupt organization was able to use an inapplicable technicality as an escape route to cover their own as$ in addition to Armstrong's.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Then this should be taken to CAS immediately instead of filing incomprehensible letters in a court that has no jurisdiction over the dispute.
> 
> Fat Pat Letter to Howman
> 
> Fat Pat Letter to Bock
> 
> USADA has some great evidence on the cover up of the 2001 ToS positive, more then just what Armstrong told teammates.


It seems you can pile up evidence to the sky and we'll still have the people who want to believe in the fraud despite what's right in front of their faces.


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> Again, coming from a Police Officer, this line of argument is strange to say the least.
> 
> Isn't it presupposed by everyone that the procudures followed by the authorities help ensure that the proper result, ie the truth, is arrived at?
> 
> If the truth isn't arrived at, wouldn't everyone agree that the procedures should be overhauled and those implementing those procedures removed from power?
> 
> Why you continually play devil's advocate and advance what are largely defense arguments, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is beyond me.
> 
> I appreciate that you recognize the right of an accused person to defend themselves vigorously, but your incessant, trivial, and spurious arguments go way beyond an accused person defending themself.
> 
> If Armstrong does escape sanction it will be because a corrupt organization was able to use an inapplicable technicality as an escape route to cover their own as$ in addition to Armstrong's.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems you can pile up evidence to the sky and we'll still have the people who want to believe in the fraud despite what's right in front of their faces.


The difference is the burden of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt means there is at least a measure of truth. If I can not show a convincing argument for motive, method of operation etc. I do not get a conviction. 

In the case of AC in order to make a ban with all that was tossed CAS had to create a theory of the crime that neither the UCI and WADA put forward AND that AC denied. 

If a Judge or jury found that the Prosecutions theory was either inadmissible or that the theory was simply not supported by the evidence, AC would have been cleared. A judge or jury can't say well the prosecution says he shot the guy, but the guy was stabbed so we will say he threw the knife at the guy and find him guilty anyway.

It is perfectly consistent actually and you simply show again your lack of familiarity with the CJ system.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Judge Sparks put off his decision for a week. Will let both sides file any additional information. Says he will give his decision rapidly

Judge Sparks ask the same question multiple times



> "Where do I have jurisdiction in this case when you can litigate this in the arbitration process?"


Hard to image he ignores years of prior rulings supporting arbitration


----------



## David Loving

I bet the Judge defers to arbitration. Why re-invent the wheel in F. Ct. when there is already a way to decide these matters?


----------



## roddjbrown

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Judge Sparks put off his decision for a week. Will let both sides file any additional information. Says he will give his decision rapidly
> 
> Judge Sparks ask the same question multiple times
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to image he ignores years of prior rulings supporting arbitration


He also criticised the vagueness of USADA's charges. 

"No case filed in this court or any court in the United States would go to trial under similar circumstances"

No fanboy, just including information


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Judge Sparks put off his decision for a week. Will let both sides file any additional information. Says he will give his decision rapidly
> 
> Judge Sparks ask the same question multiple times
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to image he ignores years of prior rulings supporting arbitration


Love how you ingored this bit man



> Sparks’ concerns and subsequently delayed ruling on jurisdiction were primarily based around the specifics provided by USADA, or rather apparent lack of which did not provide Armstrong with enough information to mount an edequate defence.
> 
> "I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks


He can support the AAA process but then still rule that what leads up to it is inadequete. The manner in which the USADA decides to go to arbitration is not actually part of the arbitration process. So he can say "the USADA review panel is inadequete" and if the panel makes his changes, then it's all good. 

LA's request was for a FULL dismissal which at this stage is premature because the USADA can still take corrective measures.


----------



## a_avery007

58-2 in favor of USADA in arbitration process..
suicide to take it there. 
will be interesting to see where this goes from here.
have a feeling some things will change..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Love how you ingored this bit man
> 
> 
> 
> He can support the AAA process but then still rule that what leads up to it is inadequete. The manner in which the USADA decides to go to arbitration is not actually part of the arbitration process. So he can say "the USADA review panel is inadequete" and if the panel makes his changes, then it's all good.
> 
> LA's request was for a FULL dismissal which at this stage is premature because the USADA can still take corrective measures.


Bock addressed the witness intimidation issues. There is zero in USADA's charging letter that does not follow the rules that Armstrong signed on to. 

The judge questioned over and over why this was on his docket. He said that Armstrong had signed up for arbitration. 

Don't worry, Lance gets to start hassling witness shortly


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

roddjbrown said:


> He also criticised the vagueness of USADA's charges.
> 
> "No case filed in this court or any court in the United States would go to trial under similar circumstances"
> 
> No fanboy, just including information


Armstrong agreed to the process. The UCI also agreed. This case is about jurisdiction, not about the charging letter.

UCI and Lance can't wait to start hassling witnesses.


----------



## badge118

double post


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

David Loving said:


> I bet the Judge defers to arbitration. Why re-invent the wheel in F. Ct. when there is already a way to decide these matters?


Agreed

You seem like a smart guy, with a background in the law. I have yet to see a clear argument why lance would fight this fight. Even if he succeed in fooling Sparks the 5th consistently upholds arbitration.

I can understand the tactic of letting the case "Grow a beard" and burn USADA's cash (hard to do as Bock is inside conceal) but why spend all this money and risk such a public defeat as this stage?


----------



## badge118

I am sure the judge will defer to Arbitration. Again however what happens before the arbitration is a different matter and that is what we are dealing with in so far as the order to the USADA. What I think is funny is how people ignore how nuanced the law is. The Judge has pretty much made what I said should have happened from the beginning clear. Before the accused makes a decision of going to Arbitration or not he should have a right to see a Prima Facia amount of evidence. This is how all other Arbitrations worked and it is how 99% of the ADO arbitrations work as well since they usually deal with analytical postives. Up to now this evidence has not been presented and on it's face it's ff'd up. Glad to see a precedent set in this regard. This has been my only complaint with the process. This lack of Prima Facia evidence and whether people like it or not the Federal Judge seems to agree. I have actually been shocked at the number of people who have been trying to defend this basic lack of transparency. 

As for why fight the fight? The only thing I can think of right now is how it can be spun and that is what it is all about. If he did not fight the fight one could see that as an admission of guilt. If he does fight the fight and lose he can say "see the judge said A, B and C about how ff'ed up the process is BEFORE he said that since I agreed to this ff'd up process 20 years ago when I was a kid I had to live with." That is all Armstrongs career has been off the bike, one long spin doctor's wet dream and I think that is what we are seeing now. 

I am under NO delusions that he is currently fighting this fight on the legal principle that he has the right to see the evidence against him so he can make an informed decision. Though I am sure he will try to spin that to some extent as well.


----------



## badge118

Yes, the Judge wanted to know why the DISMISALL request was on his docket. That is true and correct. The case on it's own should not be dismissed, he did sign on to arbitration. That said one of the little things about the Arbitration system is that you have a right, just like in normal court proceedings, to know the evidence against you so you can make an informed decision as to how to proceed.

Now previously in doping cases the vast majority are based on analytical positives. In those you have a right to even be physically prsent for the testing of the B sample and you are provided with the test results. No issue. To my knowledge this is the first time that for a non-analytical postive had witness testimony that the USADA tried to conceal for in part legitimate, but ultimately legally untenable reasons. I say perhaps because while I have no doubt they are concerned about intimidation I think they are equally concerned that advanced notice gives the LA camp more time to find info to question credibility. I said untenable because I said earlier that conceal that info was not going to hold up buit no on wanted to listen.

Btw the last snarky comment. I feel sorry for the pressure the witnesses will be under. hell last night I talked to a guy that said "nope I'll take my charge because if I name the other guy I will get shot." It fffing sucks and makes it a lot harder for people to enforce the rules than it other wise would be. But guess what simply because it sucks does not mean we can through certian basic rights out the window. So I can dislike the necessity and still see that it is necessary.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Yes, the Judge wanted to know why the DISMISALL request was on his docket. That is true and correct. The case on it's own should not be dismissed, he did sign on to arbitration. That said one of the little things about the Arbitration system is that you have a right, just like in normal court proceedings, to know the evidence against you so you can make an informed decision as to how to proceed.
> 
> Now previously in doping cases the vast majority are based on analytical positives. In those you have a right to even be physically prsent for the testing of the B sample and you are provided with the test results. No issue. To my knowledge this is the first time that for a non-analytical postive had witness testimony that the USADA tried to conceal for in part legitimate, but ultimately legally untenable reasons. I say perhaps because while I have no doubt they are concerned about intimidation I think they are equally concerned that advanced notice gives the LA camp more time to find info to question credibility. I said untenable because I said earlier that conceal that info was not going to hold up buit no on wanted to listen.
> 
> Btw the last snarky comment. I feel sorry for the pressure the witnesses will be under. hell last night I talked to a guy that said "nope I'll take my charge because if I name the other guy I will get shot." It fffing sucks and makes it a lot harder for people to enforce the rules than it other wise would be. But guess what simply because it sucks does not mean we can through certian basic rights out the window. So I can dislike the necessity and still see that it is necessary.


It was not well reported but Bock explained in detail about their "Very valid and deep" concern regarding witness intimidation. He also explained that they felt the UCI had a serious conflict of interest. In the end it really does not matter as Lance will get all the evidence he needs

It is interesting to note that nobody from Patton Boggs was there today. Lance's big name lawyer, Luskin, was a no-show


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It was not well reported but Bock explained in detail about their "Very valid and deep" concern regarding witness intimidation. He also explained that they felt the UCI had a serious conflict of interest. In the end it really does not matter as Lance will get all the evidence he needs
> 
> It is interesting to note that nobody from Patton Boggs was there today. Lance's big name lawyer, Luskin, was a no-show


All witness intimidation is a "valid and deep concern." Simply because it is a concern however does not allow an authority to unilaterally say they are going to conceal information based on that concern. It is a corner stone of due process.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> All witness intimidation is a "valid and deep concern." Simply because it is a concern however does not allow an authority to unilaterally say they are going to conceal information based on that concern. It is a corner stone of due process.


It was not unilateral. It was according to their rules. Funny that Armstrong's legal was unable to show what WADA rules on disclosure USADA were no following. 

Ultimately it does not matter. Lance, Pat and Hein will have plenty of time to explore the evidence and harass witnesses.


----------



## Chris-X

*If the case had*



badge118 said:


> The difference is the burden of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt means there is at least a measure of truth. If I can not show a convincing argument for motive, method of operation etc. I do not get a *conviction*.
> 
> In the case of AC in order to make a ban with all that was tossed CAS had to create a theory of the crime that neither the UCI and WADA put forward AND that AC denied.
> 
> If a Judge or jury found that the Prosecutions theory was either inadmissible or that the theory was simply not supported by the evidence, AC would have been cleared. * A judge or jury can't say well the prosecution* says he shot the guy, but the guy was stabbed so we will say he threw the knife at the guy and find him guilty anyway.
> 
> *It is perfectly consistent actually and you simply show again your lack of familiarity with the CJ system*.


anything to do with the criminal justice system you might have a very slight point. The problem is that as it stands now Armstrong's claims have absolutely nothing to do with the criminal justice system.

First of all I disagree with your reading of this rule 15.3 or whatever it is, and secondly the rest of your above rambling about judges and juries is simply not applicable to this case which will be decided by arbitrators in accord with an agreement LA not only signed but played a large part in creating.

There are no criminal charges here. The only issues are a career sanction and disqualification of results. 

If LA doesn't like the outcome he can then file a lawsuit against USADA and WADA and whoever the heck he likes.. Good luck with that.


----------



## Chris-X

*As for my lack of*



badge118 said:


> The difference is the burden of proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt means there is at least a measure of truth. * If I can not show a convincing argument for motive,* method of operation etc. I do not get a conviction.
> 
> In the case of AC in order to make a ban with all that was tossed CAS had to create a theory of the crime that neither the UCI and WADA put forward AND that AC denied.
> 
> If a Judge or jury found that the Prosecutions theory was either inadmissible or that the theory was simply not supported by the evidence, AC would have been cleared. A judge or jury can't say well the prosecution says he shot the guy, but the guy was stabbed so we will say he threw the knife at the guy and find him guilty anyway.
> 
> It is perfectly consistent actually and you simply show again your *lack of familiarity with the CJ system*.


familiarity with the criminal justice system, I will say that you are thoroughly demonstrating yours.

Motive does not have to be shown for a conviction to be obtained. Motive is not part of the corpus delicti..


----------



## badge118

Where in the rules does it say that you can claim to have statements implicating you and then refuse to release the statements and/or the name of those witnesses? If it was in the rules the USADA would have said so. Instead they repeatedly gave the reasons you did. "History of intimidation" etc. etc etc. They decided unilaterally that in this case Armstrong's history of intimidation justified the actions. If it was in compliance with rules and regulations would a Federal judge be able to give the order he did with the USADA not appealing the order? The last part is the important part. With all this talk about the Feds bowing to the authority of the arbitration process and the rules of that process approved of the action the USADA could appeal the order based on the rule and some precedent. They aren't though.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Where in the rules does it say that you can claim to have statements implicating you and then refuse to release the statements and/or the name of those witnesses? If it was in the rules the USADA would have said so. Instead they repeatedly gave the reasons you did. "History of intimidation" etc. etc etc. They decided unilaterally that in this case Armstrong's history of intimidation justified the actions. If it was in compliance with rules and regulations would a Federal judge be able to give the order he did with the USADA not appealing the order? The last part is the important part. With all this talk about the Feds bowing to the authority of the arbitration process and the rules of that process approved of the action the USADA could appeal the order based on the rule and some precedent. They aren't though.


We are making too much of this. The judge brought it up once on Friday. Bock explained the reasoning and Sparks never mentioned it again. 

On the other hand Sparks asked over and over about the agreement Armstrong signed


----------



## David Loving

The witness intimidation argument is specious. I think that USADA does not want to obey the discovery rules - IIRC the Federal Rules apply- because they know that a non-test result doping ban case is fragile. It is based on "eyewitness" testimony by witnesses who, even if you believe they saw a substance injected, cannot prove what it was. Their credibility is weak because of their history. I would not believe Landis if he said it's daylight at 12 noon. That testimony is bolstered by "birds of a feather flock together" testimony. If their case goes well, they can get a decision in their favor. Sometimes circumstantial evidence taken as a whole can be very compelling. IMHO, if USADA wants a decision in their favor to hold up, they had better obey the rules, or they're giving LA a way to make them start over.
If USADA can prove witness tampering they can accuse LA of a crime. I still do not see the Federal Judge doing anything with this action in Texas. Everybody signed up for arbitration and a deal is a deal.


----------



## MarkS

David Loving said:


> *I still do not see the Federal Judge doing anything with this action in Texas. Everybody signed up for arbitration and a deal is a deal*.


I agree with you. A federal court is not going to get involved in an arbitration before it gets off of the ground. The Armstrong lawyers make some potentially valid points. But, those points are for the arbitrators, not a federal court. And, arbitration is not federal court litigation with the full panoply of discovery allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The more that I read the papers in the case (and I have read most of the legal memoranda that have been filed), the more I believe that the case is just part of the PR offensive by Armstrong. I think that his lawyers know that they have no chance in stopping the case in federal court. But, this proceeding has given them a vehicle for claiming that an arbitration would be biased against Armstrong. If and when an arbitration panel does find against Armstrong, there then will be no surprise and the public already will "know" in advance that the process was rigged against Armstrong, I have to admit that I never have seen a pre-emptive strike like this. I will curious to see if it "works" at the end of the day.

Back when I was admitted to practice in federal court, the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit used to give the same welcoming speech at each ceremony. All of us tender young idealistic lawyers would cringe when he would conclude with something along the lines of "and may you be so lucky as to have very rich clients with big problems." After many years of practice, I understand what he meant. It meant not only that you would make a lot of money, but rich clients with big problems have the resources to fund the kind of litigation that one might consider in theory but not do in practice because of the the cost. Seeing litigation played at this level is for a lawyer what watching the Tour de France is for a cyclist.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

> McQuaid may have set a world record for the most errors and distortions of fact in a single press conference.


Pat McQuaid, the UCI, USADA, and the Lance Armstrong Doping Investigation | Boulder Report | Bicycling.com


----------



## The Tedinator

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Pat McQuaid, the UCI, USADA, and the Lance Armstrong Doping Investigation | Boulder Report | Bicycling.com


I know a lot of people here and over at the Clinic want LA's head on a stick, but I really want to see Heine and Fat Pat go down in flames too. Without those two going down, it is just another doper from the past finally getting what he deserves. Get these two, and we MIGHT see some real change in pro cycling.


----------



## David Loving

MarkS said:


> I agree with you. A federal court is not going to get involved in an arbitration before it gets off of the ground. The Armstrong lawyers make some potentially valid points. But, those points are for the arbitrators, not a federal court. And, arbitration is not federal court litigation with the full panoply of discovery allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
> 
> The more that I read the papers in the case (and I have read most of the legal memoranda that have been filed), the more I believe that the case is just part of the PR offensive by Armstrong. I think that his lawyers know that they have no chance in stopping the case in federal court. But, this proceeding has given them a vehicle for claiming that an arbitration would be biased against Armstrong. If and when an arbitration panel does find against Armstrong, there then will be no surprise and the public already will "know" in advance that the process was rigged against Armstrong, I have to admit that I never have seen a pre-emptive strike like this. I will curious to see if it "works" at the end of the day.
> 
> Back when I was admitted to practice in federal court, the Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit used to give the same welcoming speech at each ceremony. All of us tender young idealistic lawyers would cringe when he would conclude with something along the lines of "and may you be so lucky as to have very rich clients with big problems." After many years of practice, I understand what he meant. It meant not only that you would make a lot of money, but rich clients with big problems have the resources to fund the kind of litigation that one might consider in theory but not do in practice because of the the cost. Seeing litigation played at this level is for a lawyer what watching the Tour de France is for a cyclist.


I agree with you about the benefits to the lawyer of representing a client with the resources to really litigate the issues. It is unusual and exciting to get to do all those things that can be done. My problem with this one is that the lawyers are really just putting on a show - a public relations exercise - the Judge said as much when he dismissed the first complaint. LA's lawyers know, just like we know, that this isn't going anywhere [of course I have been wrong before!] and I'll be surprised if they win. Is what they filed frivolous? I don't think so, because you at least have the discovery issues, and in general application of FRCP. I suppose one has to get the parties following the rules. But it is mighty close. Think the Judge might sanction them? I agree with the Judge when he says he does not really see where his jurisdiction lies with this case. Is the ruling set for next week?


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We are making too much of this. The judge brought it up once on Friday. Bock explained the reasoning and Sparks never mentioned it again.
> 
> On the other hand Sparks asked over and over about the agreement Armstrong signed


Well from reading the article it sounds like the press present thought his main concern was the lack of info. Goes so far as to say just that AND he issued an order. If we were making to much of it why the court order? Answer...there would be have been no such order. The judge mentioned his concern, listened to what the USADA had to say and had no reason to comment further as he issued and order that basically said "I hear ya but turn over the evidence anyway."

Again this has nothing to do with the AAA process. I think people miss this important thing. The courts respect the AAA process because that process is governed by Federal Statute. The USADA panel however is not part of that process. It is arguably a narrow distinction but that distinction is clearly evident in that hearing.

Edit: let me clarify. I too believe in the Arbitration process. The only part of the entire system I have ever had issue with is that the accused in a non-analytical finding is not given enough information as to whether he should continue with the process. In an analytical finding they have such information. They are the ones who decide if a B sample is tested and have the right to observe the testing of the B sample. The non-analytical disciplinary process however does not have such mechanisms and there is actually if you read NO written procedure as to what the accused has access to prior to going before the USADA panel. 

I don't even know why people are trying to play down the judges concern. If the USADA case is as strong as we suppose the fact Armstrong will now actually know the evidence against him is going to have little effect on what happens if he asks for an AAA hearing. Hell at best he says "this is too much dirty laundry, lets bail." Its a good thing from all directions imo.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Well from reading the article it sounds like the press present thought his main concern was the lack of info. Goes so far as to say just that AND he issued an order. If we were making to much of it why the court order? Answer...there would be have been no such order. The judge mentioned his concern, listened to what the USADA had to say and had no reason to comment further as he issued and order that basically said "I hear ya but turn over the evidence anyway."


Link? The judge gave no order. He allowed for the sides to submit additional filings if they felt it was needed. There was nothing mandatory. 

Besides a stringer from ABC the only media present were Suzanne Halliburton from the Austin American Statesmen and Jim Vertuno from the AP. Both Austin locals and both long time defenders of the Armstrong myth. 

The repeated, central, theme of the judges questioning was based around the fact that Armstrong signed an agreement of how this would proceed.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Most know this already but it is about so much more then just doping

FraudBytes: It’s Only Lying About Drugs (A Guest Post)


----------



## David Loving

Thanks for the link - good article


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Most know this already but it is about so much more then just doping
> 
> FraudBytes: It’s Only Lying About Drugs (A Guest Post)


Veeeeeeeeery interesting :shocked: .

From the article:


> In the 1990s the most serious form of cheating involved recombinant erythropoietin (r-EPO). It gave endurance athletes an advantage that made their performances untouchable by anyone not using it._* Cyclists weren’t tested to detect r-EPO until 2000*_, and so, in 1999, Armstrong used it. But in 2004, retroactive testing of samples taken during the 1999 Tour showed Armstrong’s use of r-EPO. It would be foolish to claim the peloton was clean before the 1999 Tour began, but as doping scientist Michael Ashenden and blogger Andy Shen point out, the retroactive testing strongly suggested that unlike Armstrong, over 90% of his competitors were not using r-EPO during the race.


Hey Doc; Stupid question:
Have you and/or others here made these points already in other threads in this forum?


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Link? The judge gave no order. He allowed for the sides to submit additional filings if they felt it was needed. There was nothing mandatory.
> 
> Besides a stringer from ABC the only media present were Suzanne Halliburton from the Austin American Statesmen and Jim Vertuno from the AP. Both Austin locals and both long time defenders of the Armstrong myth.
> 
> The repeated, central, theme of the judges questioning was based around the fact that Armstrong signed an agreement of how this would proceed.


Sorry been busy...



> Sparks’ concerns and subsequently delayed ruling on jurisdiction were primarily based around the specifics provided by USADA, or rather apparent lack of which did not provide Armstrong with enough information to mount an edequate defence.
> 
> "I couldn't find anything but conclusions (in the charges)," Sparks said. "Not one name, not one event, not one date,” said Sparks...


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

He also noted that he was wondering why he was seeing the case but if you see the two different lines of thought the judge seems to see the USADA panel process and the AAA panel as two different things. The AAA panel has to obey Federal rules and regulations. This is the main reason the courts defer to them in many cases. The USADA panel process though is not governed by these rules and clearly Sparks is concerned.

Heck you even acknowledged this at one point. You said something to the effect of "don't worry Armstrong will be able to start harassing witnesses now."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Sorry been busy...
> 
> 
> 
> Judge Delays Ruling In Armstrong And USADA Case | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> He also noted that he was wondering why he was seeing the case but if you see the two different lines of thought the judge seems to see the USADA panel process and the AAA panel as two different things. The AAA panel has to obey Federal rules and regulations. This is the main reason the courts defer to them in many cases. The USADA panel process though is not governed by these rules and clearly Sparks is concerned.
> 
> Heck you even acknowledged this at one point. You said something to the effect of "don't worry Armstrong will be able to start harassing witnesses now."


You didn't read what I wrote did you? 

There was limited media present. The judge did require USADA to submit more info, there was no order. The judge accepted what USADA said and moved on. It is not surprising that Susan focused on that small part of a 3 hour long hearing but it was the one bright spot. 

If it was important the judge would have done what you claimed he did.....but he didn't. In fact when USADA made their last filing they barely mentioned it. 

Lance likes to cry about the notice letter but the fact is that it followed the rules he agreed to



> The Protocol simply requires USADA to “providenotice of such potential [anti-doping rule] violation to the Athlete or Other Person, the USOC,the applicable NGB, IF and WADA.” 18 The June 12, 2012 notice letter did so


You will be able to read the transcripts in November.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

cda 455 said:


> Veeeeeeeeery interesting :shocked: .
> 
> From the article:
> Hey Doc; Stupid question:
> Have you and/or others here made these points already in other threads in this forum?


Yes, 

Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


----------



## cda 455

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes,
> 
> Michael Ashenden | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events



Wow, wow, wow!


Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ashenden-says-mcquaid-must-now-help-usadas-investigation

Why did the UCI fight so hard to derail the Armstrong/USADA case? Because they know USADA has evidence of their corruption


----------



## Chris-X

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ashenden Says: McQuaid Must Now Help USADA's Investigation | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> Why did the UCI fight so hard to derail the Armstrong/USADA case? Because they know USADA has evidence of their corruption


_“It has descended into a legal jungle. One minute Armstrong says he is not going to fight any future charges, the next he’s taking USADA to court with a ‘Hail Mary’ legal argument which the judge subsequently booted out. One minute the UCI are content for USADA to run the case, next they intervene seeking to derail USADA. Last time I looked they have accepted the judge’s ruling. *I don’t know if that is all chair shuffling on the deck of the Titanic,* but as far as I can tell the only party who have kept their position the same throughout these developments has been USADA,” he told Cyclingnews._"

:lol:


----------



## badge118

Well LA decides not to go to the AAA. Not surprising because once there the chances of winning were slim to none. Instead there he returns to the martyr card. An interesting commentary follows which pretty much hits the mark I noted when he first made the "If the USADA charges me I won't fight it."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...e-conversation-by-refusing-arbitration_235712

Only interesting thing is he only says he won't fight the AAA. His attorneys claim they are still weighing an appeal in Federal court. We thought we heard the end of this a few months ago when he first pulled out the martyr card. Have we finally heard the end now?


----------



## Chris-X

*Lame*



badge118 said:


> Well LA decides not to go to the AAA. Not surprising because once there the chances of winning were slim to none. Instead there he returns to the martyr card. An interesting commentary follows which pretty much hits the mark I noted when he first made the "If the USADA charges me I won't fight it."
> 
> Commentary: Armstrong the martyr changes the conversation by refusing arbitration
> 
> Only interesting thing is he only says he won't fight the AAA. His attorneys claim they are still weighing an appeal in Federal court. We thought we heard the end of this a few months ago when he first pulled out the martyr card. Have we finally heard the end now?


_So, here we are. *Did Lance Armstrong dope during his historic career*, as USADA and a collection of its witnesses allege? Armstrong, coy as ever, made the only decision tonight that he could. By accepting a lifetime ban, he turned the conversation for many from whether he doped, to whether, in the big picture, it really matters._


----------



## badge118

Chris-X said:


> _So, here we are. *Did Lance Armstrong dope during his historic career*, as USADA and a collection of its witnesses allege? Armstrong, coy as ever, made the only decision tonight that he could. By accepting a lifetime ban, he turned the conversation for many from whether he doped, to whether, in the big picture, it really matters._


The thing is though while you and I ask the question and think the answer is yes... many people outside of cycling enthusiasts ask the last question you didn't highlight. They look at the Livestrong foundation, his inspirational story and say "it doesn't matter." People with some connection to the sport, not enthusiast, some call them 99ers, will say at best "they all doped then, so what does it matter?" or "this is a persecution, he is the most tested athlete ever and now he is just tired of 13 years of fighting.

People do crap like this all the time. Marion Barry gets arrested (one of the charges being multiple counts of perjury), is quoted as saying "***** set me up" goes to Federal prison but only gets 6 months because 5 jurors hung on saying that facts Barry did not contest were fabricated? It was all a big conspiracy. He gets out and is then reelected Mayor and then after the 4th terms gets elected to city council. The difference between being seen as Robin Hood and a Highwayman is all based on where you stand when you are looking at the guy.


----------

