# UCI Not Considering CAS Appeal



## CheapTrek (Dec 23, 2011)

Well... Guess it's down to WADA and ASO. Don't think there will be much resistance there.

UCI not considering CAS appeal in Armstrong case: McQuaid - 1450 WHTC Holland's Hometown Station


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

CheapTrek said:


> Well... Guess it's down to WADA and ASO. Don't think there will be much resistance there.
> 
> UCI not considering CAS appeal in Armstrong case: McQuaid - 1450 WHTC Holland's Hometown Station


 
I can't imagine WADA standing in the way, and it would seem pretty absurd for ASO to try.

Edited to add: Pat's being a little cagey and leaving his options open, if'n the USADA case file turned out to be an unsubstantiated witch hunt.

Which it won't - but it would be sort of humorous to watch McQuaid try to backpedal on this statement.


----------



## CheapTrek (Dec 23, 2011)

danl1 said:


> I can't imagine WADA standing in the way, and it would seem pretty absurd for ASO to try.


Yeah. WADA said it supported USADA's decision a few weeks back. It's pretty much a done deal unless the supporting evidence is more fluff than substance (which I doubt).

ASO really has no choice but to go along now that UCI has made this statement. 

Say hello to 7 years a black hole where TdF cycling once was.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

CheapTrek said:


> Say hello to 7 years a black hole where TdF cycling once was.


It's been like that for quite a few people I think. Except it's more like 15 years, not just Armstrong.


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

why hasn't usada released the evidence???

I want to see/read about all the facts


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

Same article mentions UCI wants names of riders given a deal to testify so they can pursue them. Looks like Vaughters may have just written a retirement statement for DZ, CVV, and Tommy D by outing them.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spookyload said:


> Same article mentions UCI wants names of riders given a deal to testify so they can pursue them. Looks like Vaughters may have just written a retirement statement for DZ, CVV, and Tommy D by outing them.


why do you think 2 of them withdrew from the olympics?


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

spookyload said:


> Same article mentions UCI wants names of riders given a deal to testify so they can pursue them. Looks like Vaughters may have just written a retirement statement for DZ, CVV, and Tommy D by outing them.


The USADA will give them reduced sentences, probably six months. Some of these guys may have doped outside the SOL so they get nothing.

What I do expect to happen is the UCI to challenge the reduced bans. It has done so in the past to increase the pain of those who cooperated.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mariomal99 said:


> why hasn't usada released the evidence???


To whom? Who has standing in this case?


mariomal99 said:


> I want to see/read about all the facts


It's good to want things.


----------



## CheapTrek (Dec 23, 2011)

den bakker said:


> It's been like that for quite a few people I think. Except it's more like 15 years, not just Armstrong.


Agree, it goes back further. Heck, pretty much back to the beginning of pro cycling but it's the LA years that they are talking about leaving the results blank Heck I could deal with them passing the results to the lanterne rouge (provided he was clean) or slapping up asterisk where applicable but where does it end?

Are we going to go back and posthumously strip Pantani in a few years? Heck, Riis is pretty deep in the wampoo right now. Conti already lost one. I think we know the deal with Ullrich. Landis is nothing but a foot note. Heck, maybe we can dig up enough to take care of Indurain and Merckx too.


----------



## spookyload (Jan 30, 2004)

den bakker said:


> why do you think 2 of them withdrew from the olympics?


It just seems odd to me that he would do that to his own team. It makes me wonder if his mouth got ahead of his brain on this one.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

spookyload said:


> It just seems odd to me that he would do that to his own team. It makes me wonder if his mouth got ahead of his brain on this one.


He knows the stuff about his riders will come out, probably within two weeks. I think he is leaking the information out slowly to lessen its impact. It was not an accident that he recently admitted to doping in no uncertain terms in an editorial to the NYT then followed that with a more detailed interview for Bicycling.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

spookyload said:


> It just seems odd to me that he would do that to his own team. It makes me wonder if his mouth got ahead of his brain on this one.


Maybe. I wonder if he wanted to get it out there while the media was still in full TH feeding frenzy. Then it is old news once things settle down. Get ahead of the story as they say.

Regardless of his intent, if he dropped dime on those guys without telling them first I would lose a lot of respect for him.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

spookyload said:


> Same article mentions UCI wants names of riders given a deal to testify so they can pursue them. Looks like Vaughters may have just written a retirement statement for DZ, CVV, and Tommy D by outing them.



Wow; Good point.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

trailrunner68 said:


> The USADA will give them reduced sentences, probably six months. Some of these guys may have doped outside the SOL so they get nothing.
> 
> *What I do expect to happen is the UCI to challenge the reduced bans. It has done so in the past to increase the pain of those who cooperated*.


BINGO! Lance is not going down without there being blood on the streets. And, the UCI clearly is in Lance's pocket.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

MarkS said:


> BINGO! Lance is not going down without there being blood on the streets. And, the UCI clearly is in Lance's pocket.


Maybe not. If the evidence shows that the UCI actually covered up the positives or even if there was collaboration or advance notice between UCI and the Armstrong/Bruyneel camp, then I doubt McQuaid will be doing much talking or even much of anything. I see him as a lame-duck president right now.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

trailrunner68 said:


> The USADA will give them reduced sentences, probably six months. Some of these guys may have doped outside the SOL so they get nothing.
> 
> What I do expect to happen is the UCI to challenge the reduced bans. It has done so in the past to increase the pain of those who cooperated.


Exactly this is f'in McQuaid trying to silence anyone that might be inclined to talk. How come he's in a hurry to get to these guys but has all the time in the world for the Armstrong, Bruyneel sentence?

How come he's not looking into Riis given all the information that's come out about him recently?

Once again the UCI seems to be spurning a chance to really step up and do as much as it could to clean up cycling.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

I have to wonder why it's taking so long for USADA to produce the evidence to the UCI. This has been sold as a done deal, incontrovertible evidence, etc., and yet, even in the wake of victory, they seem totally unprepared to substantiate their findings. WTF? Weren't they ready for trial? Everything should have been ready to go.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

mohair_chair said:


> I have to wonder why it's taking so long for USADA to produce the evidence to the UCI. This has been sold as a done deal, incontrovertible evidence, etc., and yet, even in the wake of victory, they seem totally unprepared to substantiate their findings. WTF? Weren't they ready for trial? Everything should have been ready to go.


USADA still has Bruyneel to arbitrate with, so until his case is resolved, they have said they will not be releasing details.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> I have to wonder why it's taking so long for USADA to produce the evidence to the UCI. This has been sold as a done deal, incontrovertible evidence, etc., and yet, even in the wake of victory, they seem totally unprepared to substantiate their findings. WTF? Weren't they ready for trial? Everything should have been ready to go.


Haven't they explicitly said they'll give it to them after the Bruyneel & Marti arbitration? (I don't know but I thought that was the case).


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Haven't they explicitly said they'll give it to them after the Bruyneel & Marti arbitration? (I don't know but I thought that was the case).


What is stopping the UCI from demanding the details now? After all, the USADA took their victory lap already, and called for all the results to be stricken. Now the only thing that stands in the way is the USADA. It seems fishy to me. If the case was good enough to bring down Lance, it should easily be good enough to bring down Bruyneel & Marti.


----------



## King Arthur (Nov 13, 2009)

Makes no difference, if they are in on the conspiracy, they get the same sentence as L.A. 
Nullification of all wins, return of all money earned, and permanent ban for life.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MarkS said:


> BINGO! Lance is not going down without there being blood on the streets. And, the UCI clearly is in Lance's pocket.


This:thumbsup:

For the last few months the UCI has been making it clear to all involved that if they told the truth they are going to make their life hell. This is just a public version of what they have been saying privately for a while. 

I expect the UCI will appeal to CAS, and lose. This is a good thing. The more stupid moves the UCI make the better. 

As for the evidence, it will be out late next week, or early the week after. USADA was geared up for arbitration and have spent the last week dumping it into the format needed for public consumption......oh, and they have a new witness


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> What is stopping the UCI from demanding the details now? After all, the USADA took their victory lap already, and called for all the results to be stricken. Now the only thing that stands in the way is the USADA. It seems fishy to me. If the case was good enough to bring down Lance, it should easily be good enough to bring down Bruyneel & Marti.


Don't worry. It most of it will be out in a week


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

King Arthur said:


> Makes no difference, if they are in on the conspiracy, they get the same sentence as L.A.
> Nullification of all wins, return of all money earned, and permanent ban for life.


Nope

The WADA code, like our judicial system, allows for a reduction in sanction when a rider cooperates, especially when it helps dismantle a sophisticated doping system like Marti, Bruyneel, Ferrari and Bruyneel were running for a decade. Lance was offer the same deal. He was too arrogant to take it and stood by his co-conspirators


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This:thumbsup:
> 
> For the last few months the UCI has been making it clear to all involved that if they told the truth they are going to make their life hell. This is just a public version of what they have been saying privately for a while.
> 
> ...


The ex wife? Sheryl Crow? C'mon Doc, spill it!


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> The ex wife? Sheryl Crow? C'mon Doc, spill it!



_*Yeah, dang it :lol: !!1!*_


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

The Tedinator said:


> The ex wife? Sheryl Crow? C'mon Doc, spill it!


Andy Bishop would be my guess.


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

trailrunner68 said:


> Andy Bishop would be my guess.



Wow; Why him?


Hmm, I haven't seen his name in the news.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

The Tedinator said:


> Sheryl Crow?


:thumbsup:


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

cda 455 said:


> Wow; Why him?
> 
> Hmm, I haven't seen his name in the news.


Recently, Bishop gave some quotes in a news report about Armstrong's doping on Motorola. The report had the feel of local news contacting an ex-teammate who lived in the area to see what he would say, and the ex-teammate saying he was not surprised that Armstrong was caught and watched Armstrong and others move to EPO in the early 90s. Shortly afterward the USADA said that additional witnesses had contacted the agency and asked if they could help.

It is a guess. 

I bet there are a lot of people Armstrong mistreated over the years who are willing to speak now that Armstrong has been caught out. With Tyler smashing the walls down, we could get a lot more people coming forward. I would like to hear from the old Motorola guys.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope
> 
> The WADA code, like our judicial system, allows for a reduction in sanction when a rider cooperates, especially when it helps dismantle a sophisticated doping system like Marti, Bruyneel, Ferrari and Bruyneel were running for a decade. Lance was offer the same deal. He was too arrogant to take it and stood by his co-conspirators


WADA and the USADA also doesn't care about it's own code. USADA and WADA completely disregarded their 8yr statute of limitations merely because USADA's unproven allegation Armstrong committed fraud. The rule sates "No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred." Armstrong deserves proper due process USADA should be required to prove to an independent Arbitrator or court that Armstrong committed fraudulent concealment before proceeding with actions against any alleged doping that happened before 2004-2005.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Jason1500 said:


> WADA and the USADA also doesn't care about it's own code. USADA and WADA completely disregarded their 8yr statute of limitations merely because USADA's unproven allegation Armstrong committed fraud. The rule sates "No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred." Armstrong deserves proper due process USADA should be required to prove to an independent Arbitrator or court that Armstrong committed fraudulent concealment before proceeding with actions against any alleged doping that happened before 2004-2005.


Like most rules, there are exceptions. The USADA was prepared to show why Armstrong should not be afforded the protection of the SOL. Armstrong pleaded no contest. He could have contested the SOL issue. He chose not to because he was guilty. He was then properly sanctioned in the same way you would be if you chose not to contest a traffic ticket. 

He cannot claim his due process rights were trampled based on what he says might have happened. He has to have suffered actual damage. The judge said everything was kosher and he could come back if any of his fantasies actually came true.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

trailrunner68 said:


> Like most rules, there are exceptions. The USADA was prepared to show why Armstrong should not be afforded the protection of the SOL. Armstrong pleaded no contest. He could have contested the SOL issue. He chose not to because he was guilty. He was then properly sanctioned in the same way you would be if you chose not to contest a traffic ticket.
> 
> He cannot claim his due process rights were trampled based on what he says might have happened. He has to have suffered actual damage. The judge said everything was kosher and he could come back if any of his fantasies actually came true.


Thank you for confirming I'm not clueless. It seems pretty obvious to me as well. The analogy would be like a person claiming their due process was violated because they were punished without a jury finding them guilty of the crime when they plead guilty/no contest to a criminal charge.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

trailrunner68 said:


> Like most rules, there are exceptions. The USADA was prepared to show why Armstrong should not be afforded the protection of the SOL. Armstrong pleaded no contest. He could have contested the SOL issue. He chose not to because he was guilty. He was then properly sanctioned in the same way you would be if you chose not to contest a traffic ticket.
> 
> He cannot claim his due process rights were trampled based on what he says might have happened. He has to have suffered actual damage. The judge said everything was kosher and he could come back if any of his fantasies actually came true.


I disagree, re-read the SoL, it clearly states *"No action may be commenced.."* The USADA clearly commenced actions against Armstrong by even opening an inquiry against him after the SoL expired. The USADA violated his due process rights by accusing him of fraud and finding him guilty of fraud with no trial or hearing of any kind in order to get around the SoL they acted as judge, jury, and, executioner. Imagine you're charged with a crime and found guilty without trial so that you may be charged with another more severe crime that's what the USADA did and I don't understand why people here don't see how wrong that is. Allowing the USADA to trample someone's rights because *you think you know* they're guilty isn't justice in fact it goes against fairness and justice it's like your saying _'I know he's guilty therefore it doesn't matter about due process just as long as in the end the USADA finds him guilty as well' _. That wrong and if you were accused of a crime you would want due process.

The only allegations the USADA should of pursued on Armstrong was from June 12, 2004 - June 12, 2012...8yrs unless they had a specific independent trial hearing to prove fraudulent concealment in order to go after him for longer then 8yrs.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

Jason1500 said:


> I disagree, re-read the SoL, it clearly states *"No action may be commenced.."* The USADA clearly commenced actions against Armstrong by even opening an inquiry against him after the SoL expired. The USADA violated his due process rights by accusing him of fraud and finding him guilty of fraud with no trial or hearing of any kind in order to get around the SoL they acted as judge, jury, and, executioner. Imagine you're charged with a crime and found guilty without trial so that you may be charged with another more severe crime that's what the USADA did and I don't understand why people here don't see how wrong that is. Allowing the USADA to trample someone's rights because *you think you know* they're guilty isn't justice in fact it goes against fairness and justice it's like your saying _'I know he's guilty therefore it doesn't matter about due process just as long as in the end the USADA finds him guilty as well' _. That wrong and if you were accused of a crime you would want due process.
> 
> The only allegations the USADA should of pursued on Armstrong was from June 12, 2004 - June 12, 2012...8yrs unless they had a specific independent trial hearing to prove fraudulent concealment in order to go after him for longer then 8yrs.


He is not accused of a crime, and this proceeding is not within the criminal law system and therefore most of your comments above about what "should" have happened are irrelevant and wishful thinking.

They have evidence post-2004 on LA, and as he was the central figure in the conspiracy, they chose to reach back further in time for additional evidence. He could have challenged this in arbitration, but he opted not to.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Jason1500 said:


> I disagree, re-read the SoL, it clearly states *"No action may be commenced.."* The USADA clearly commenced actions against Armstrong by even opening an inquiry against him after the SoL expired. The USADA violated his due process rights by accusing him of fraud and finding him guilty of fraud with no trial or hearing of any kind in order to get around the SoL they acted as judge, jury, and, executioner. Imagine you're charged with a crime and found guilty without trial so that you may be charged with another more severe crime that's what the USADA did and I don't understand why people here don't see how wrong that is. Allowing the USADA to trample someone's rights because *you think you know* they're guilty isn't justice in fact it goes against fairness and justice it's like your saying _'I know he's guilty therefore it doesn't matter about due process just as long as in the end the USADA finds him guilty as well' _. That wrong and if you were accused of a crime you would want due process.
> 
> The only allegations the USADA should of pursued on Armstrong was from June 12, 2004 - June 12, 2012...8yrs unless they had a specific independent trial hearing to prove fraudulent concealment in order to go after him for longer then 8yrs.


They did commence an action against him within the SOL. However, the SOL only applies to commencement of action. In this case, there's evidence that ties in 2004-5 with all the prior years as part of a conspiracy to dope, traffic and coerce others to do the same. Thereby, those years are eligible for sanction.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Jason1500 said:


> WADA and the USADA also doesn't care about it's own code. USADA and WADA completely disregarded their 8yr statute of limitations merely because USADA's unproven allegation Armstrong committed fraud. The rule sates "No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred." Armstrong deserves proper due process USADA should be required to prove to an independent Arbitrator or court that Armstrong committed fraudulent concealment before proceeding with actions against any alleged doping that happened before 2004-2005.


Nope

Like the judicial system WADA allows for tolling of the SOL if a doper lied under oath or to an official investigation. The Hellebuyck case set the precedence

http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Armstrong lied when he tested positive for Cortisone in 1999
Armstrong, and others, lied in the official investigation into the dumping of drugs and syringes in 2000
He obstructed the investigation into the 2001 positive for EPO 
He lied under oath in the 2006 SCA case


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope
> 
> Like the judicial system WADA allows for tolling of the SOL if a doper lied under oath or to an official investigation. The Hellebuyck case set the precedence
> 
> ...


I'm sorry there's a huge difference. Hellebuyck admitted to Runners World in 2010 that he in fact doped and that his testimony in 2004 arbitration hearing was a lie hence the decision to go back further then 8yrs since Hellebuyck lied in arbitration. I agree with that decision. 

However, Armstrong has never admitted to lying and has never been found guilty of lying. The examples you cite above are only allegations at best. All I'm saying is USADA shouldn't be able to dismiss their own SoL by finding Armstrong guilty of fraud without even having a hearing on the matter, the accuser acting as jury is wrong no matter who it's against. Let them prove Armstrong lied in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2006.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

Jason1500 said:


> I'm sorry there's a huge difference. Hellebuyck admitted to Runners World in 2010 that he in fact doped and that his testimony in 2004 arbitration hearing was a lie hence the decision to go back further then 8yrs since Hellebuyck lied in arbitration. I agree with that decision.
> 
> However, Armstrong has never admitted to lying and has never been found guilty of lying. The examples you cite above are only allegations at best. All I'm saying is USADA shouldn't be able to dismiss their own SoL by finding Armstrong guilty of fraud without even having a hearing on the matter, the accuser acting as jury is wrong no matter who it's against. Let them prove Armstrong lied in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2006.


You continue talking as if this is a criminal case. Some of your earlier points are indeed true about criminal proceedings, which I am guessing is why he is not facing jail time for drug trafficking, tax evasion, perjury, fraud, etc. I also think calling USADA the jury is somewhat misleading as this is a very different process than a criminal court case. In this process, the arbitrator would have been the jury...and just as with a criminal case, refusal to defend yourself does not allow you to walk free.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

Jason1500 said:


> I'm sorry there's a huge difference. Hellebuyck admitted to Runners World in 2010 that he in fact doped and that his testimony in 2004 arbitration hearing was a lie hence the decision to go back further then 8yrs since Hellebuyck lied in arbitration. I agree with that decision.
> 
> However, Armstrong has never admitted to lying and has never been found guilty of lying. The examples you cite above are only allegations at best. All I'm saying is USADA shouldn't be able to dismiss their own SoL by finding Armstrong guilty of fraud without even having a hearing on the matter, the accuser acting as jury is wrong no matter who it's against. Let them prove Armstrong lied in 1999, 2000, 2001, 2006.


It doesn't matter. Even in the judicial system, when someone enters a guilty, or even a no-contest, plea, the evidence is never produced in court. Through the discovery process, the defendant can see the evidence against him. When he and/or his lawyer see that they can't win, a plea is entered. The government doesn't have to prove a damn thing when a defendant pleads---he provides the necessary proof by admitting guilt or throwing in the towel in places that allow a no-contest plea, or an Alford plea (where you plead guilty without a factual admission).

People have fewer rights before administrative panels that govern their activities than they do in a court of law. Why should USADA be held to a higher standard of action than a court?


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

Addict07 said:


> You continue talking as if this is a criminal case. Some of your earlier points are indeed true about criminal proceedings, which I am guessing is why he is not facing jail time for drug trafficking, tax evasion, perjury, fraud, etc. I also think calling USADA the jury is somewhat misleading as this is a very different process than a criminal court case. In this process, the arbitrator would have been the jury...and just as with a criminal case, refusal to defend yourself does not allow you to walk free.


Criminal case or not the basic tenants of justice should still remain, and that is innocent until proven guilty and due process. By due process I mean the USADA should be following their own code and surely in that code it doesn't include a provision to find a member guilty of fraud without any sort of arbitration hearing does it? I'll repeat the SoL clearly state that "No action may commence". The precedent for going past the 8yr SoL is the Hellebuyck case where they said he was guilty of fraudulent concealment but only because he admitted to lying. Armstrong has not admitted to lying and therefore should be entitled to a hearing or arbitration finding someone guilty without any sort of hearing what so ever in order to skirt the SoL is a violation of due process. Let the USADA present their evidence to an arbitrator that Armstrong lied back during his TdF days in order to conceal doping if the arbitrator finds Armstrong guilty so be it and then the USADA can proceed with the doping allegations against Armstrong and if at the point Armstrong still refuses to defend himself then a ban would be warranted until then, IMO the USADA violated Armstrong's due process rights and over stepped their authority to stripe him of his titles.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

mohair_chair said:


> What is stopping the UCI from demanding the details now? After all, the USADA took their victory lap already, and called for all the results to be stricken. Now the only thing that stands in the way is the USADA. It seems fishy to me. If the case was good enough to bring down Lance, it should easily be good enough to bring down Bruyneel & Marti.


Simple really the UCI is not running the show here AND is implicated as being corrupte. They tried to say they were in charge and should be runnings but that claim was denied. So the UCI can't demand anything (in fact its not their place to. 

USADA, as they have said over and over, will release the evidence once all outstanding arbitration is done.

Then perhape we will get to see the Feds have their fun all the whole civil case is out there as well.


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

Jason1500 said:


> Criminal case or not the basic tenants of justice should still remain, and that is innocent until proven guilty and due process. By due process I mean the USADA should be following their own code and surely in that code it doesn't include a provision to find a member guilty of fraud without any sort of arbitration hearing does it? I'll repeat the SoL clearly state that "No action may commence". The precedent for going past the 8yr SoL is the Hellebuyck case where they said he was guilty of fraudulent concealment but only because he admitted to lying. Armstrong has not admitted to lying and therefore should be entitled to a hearing or arbitration finding someone guilty without any sort of hearing what so ever in order to skirt the SoL is a violation of due process. Let the USADA present their evidence to an arbitrator that Armstrong lied back during his TdF days in order to conceal doping if the arbitrator finds Armstrong guilty so be it and then the USADA can proceed with the doping allegations against Armstrong and if at the point Armstrong still refuses to defend himself then a ban would be warranted until then, IMO the USADA violated Armstrong's due process rights and over stepped their authority to stripe him of his titles.


The federal court ruled that USADA's arbitration does provide adequate due process. Obviously LA can afford the best and brightest attorneys money can buy, and he has demonstrated a willingness to use them, so I at least have no doubt that if there was an open and shut case against USADA, they would have made it and the judge would have ruled accordingly.

Your argument is based on the premise that the only way USADA could reach back is due to prior fraud...I know that was the argument for Hellebuyck, but I have yet to see anything definitive that this was the logic for LA. I thought I read something where Tygaart indicated it was due to the egregious nature of the case, but I apoplogize for not being able to provide a link.

As for quoting the SOL, are you sure there isn't language someplace else either in the USADA code or Tygaart's job description that gives him the authority to make exceptions in exigent circumstances? Again, if there wasn't, why would a federal judge ignore it? He conceivably had all the information in front of him, versus our speculation based on news reports.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Addict07 said:


> Your argument is based on the premise that the only way USADA could reach back is due to prior fraud...I know that was the argument for Hellebuyck, but I have yet to see anything definitive that this was the logic for LA. I thought I read something where Tygaart indicated it was due to the egregious nature of the case, but I apoplogize for not being able to provide a link.


It seems to be there are multiple reasons the SOL can be exceeded. 

Armstrong was part of a conspiracy that stretches from 1998 to nearly the present day. The conspiracy's acts within the SOL allow the entire scheme to be actionable.

The 1999 corticosteroid positive does not just entail lying. Armstrong and his team created a fraudulent TUE to excuse the infraction. His doping would have been discovered and he sanctioned at that time but for that fraudulent TUE. If he is allowed to get away with that then it is an open license for everyone else to defraud the system.

Armstrong has a long history of intimidating witnesses and harming those who speak about his doping. Without that type of thuggery, his doping would have been discovered earlier. Again, if he is allowed to benefit from such behavior then others will be encouraged to use the same methods. The system would break down.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

Quick response as I'm on many phone. The federal court did not say the USADA was using proper sure process in fact I believe the judge said he concerned that the USADA was not.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*and if you saw the way*



Dwayne Barry said:


> Thank you for confirming I'm not clueless. It seems pretty obvious to me as well. The analogy would be like a person claiming their due process was violated because they were punished without a jury finding them guilty of the crime when they plead guilty/no contest to a criminal charge.


the USADA holds these trials you wouldn't fight it either

no cross examination of witnesses, no pre-trial discovery and disclosure of evidence to be used by prosecution to defense. Heck the witnesses don't even have to be there.

the USADA court is a joke. To fight it and lose would be a waste of time and money. The USADA trial was using the same testimony the grand jury saw and the prosecution realized was not enough to convict yet in their kangaroo court was a closed case.

I am no Lance Armstrong fanboi but I am scared of the notion of some bureaucratic court being able to destroy someones career with a burden of proof that falls way under what our regular justice system demands. Think of trade organizations in your respected field, would you want that sort of fairness with your career hanging in the balance?


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

Jason1500 said:


> Quick response as I'm on many phone. The federal court did not say the USADA was using proper sure process in fact I believe the judge said he concerned that the USADA was not.


Uh, no. Go read the court's Order.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

atpjunkie said:


> the USADA holds these trials you wouldn't fight it either
> 
> no cross examination of witnesses, no pre-trial discovery and disclosure of evidence to be used by prosecution to defense. Heck the witnesses don't even have to be there. ...


These comments might have some merit except for the fact that USADA does not conduct the hearings.


----------



## Jason1500 (Apr 1, 2008)

I was referring to this

Sparks, the U.S. federal judge, acknowledged "the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum."


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

asgelle said:


> These comments might have some merit except for the fact that USADA does not conduct the hearings.


They might have some merit if everything he said about the process was not flat out wrong. Somebody has been drinking the Armstrong Kool Aid.

Hint: If Armstrong, his lawyers, or his spokespeple say something, assume right from the beginning that it is a lie.

Hint #2: If someone says they are no Armstrong fanboy while they are parroting Armstrong's defense, assume their home is plastered wall to wall with posters of The Lance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

atpjunkie said:


> the USADA holds these trials you wouldn't fight it either
> 
> no cross examination of witnesses, no pre-trial discovery and disclosure of evidence to be used by prosecution to defense.


Completely incorrect. 

Armstrong would get access to all of the evidence before the arbitration and would be allowed to cross examine witnesses

It is amazing that people repeat this lie even though it has been shown to be wrong over and over.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Jason1500 said:


> Quick response as I'm on many phone. The federal court did not say the USADA was using proper sure process in fact I believe the judge said he concerned that the USADA was not.


Nope

Judge Sparks wrote 



> the Court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,”


----------



## Addict07 (Jun 23, 2011)

Jason1500 said:


> I was referring to this
> 
> Sparks, the U.S. federal judge, acknowledged "the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum."


Yes, he took BOTH USADA and UCI to task, the former for its aggressiveness to prosecute, and the latter for its unwillingness to do so. But this had nothing to do with the due process topic.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

UCI still waiting for USADA file on Armstrong, confirms appeal unlikely



> “We assume that both full reasoned decision and case file will justify USADA's position on all issues,





> the sheer volume of evidence gathered plus the need to exclude information sensitive to the pending arbitration processes of Johan Bruyneel, Pedro Celaya and Pepe Marti meant that it would take time before the reasoned decision would be communicated.





> UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS or not to recognise USADA’s sanctions on Lance Armstrong,”


----------

