# Judge Sparks dismisses Armstrong lawsuit



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Sparks Decision

Big failure by Lance. Judge essentially parrots USADA's case in his decision.

Hopefully Lance has to pay back the taxpayer funds he wasted in this farce


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sparks Decision
> 
> Big failure by Lance. Judge essentially parrots USADA's case in his decision.
> 
> Hopefully Lance has to pay back the taxpayer funds he wasted in this farce


Why is Lance wasting tax payers money on this witch hunt?


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

"With the understanding Armstrong has received all process he is due, at this time."

The due process argument from people who should've known better were most annoying.

If LA's due process rights are violated during the arbitration, THEN, they will be addressed. LMAO.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

USADA actually comes off really badly in this one. 

Judge Issues Stinging Criticism Of USADA In Armstrong Case | Cyclingnews.com



> In the opinion, Sparks takes USADA to task, stating, "there are troubling aspects of this case, not least of which is USADA's apparent single-minded determination to force Armstrong to arbitrate the charges against him, in direct conflict with UCI's equally evident desire not to proceed against him."
> 
> In another note, Sparks writes, "Among the Court's concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after his alleged doping violations occurred, and intends to consolidate his case with those of several other alleged offenders, including - incredibly - several over whom USA Cycling and USOC apparently have no authority whatsoever. Further, if Armstrong's allegations are true, and USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC."
> 
> ...


Ouch.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sparks Decision
> 
> Big failure by Lance. Judge essentially parrots USADA's case in his decision.
> 
> Hopefully Lance has to pay back the taxpayer funds he wasted in this farce


The Court came out where I have been predicting it would from the time that the case was filed. The federal courts take a hand-off approach in cases where a party has agreed to arbitration. I am no great fan of arbitration and I think that some of the criticisms that people make about arbitration are valid. But, federal law, as it has been interpreted consistently by the Supreme Court, is very pro-arbitration and the courts will not get involved in the pre-arbitration stage of a dispute.

Althouth Judge Sparks agreed with USADA with respect to the legal issue before the Court, I would not be 100% happy if I were USADA. Judge Sparks appears to give some credence to arguments that Armstrong has made about the initial notice. 

I wonder when the emergency appeal will be filed in the Fifth Circuit. I predict no later than tomorrow.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

MarkS said:


> The Court came out where I have been predicting it would from the time that the case was filed. The federal courts take a hand-off approach in cases where a party has agreed to arbitration. I am no great fan of arbitration and I think that some of the criticisms that people make about arbitration are valid. But, federal law, as it has been interpreted consistently by the Supreme Court, is very pro-arbitration and the courts will not get involved in the pre-arbitration stage of a dispute.
> 
> Althouth Judge Sparks agreed with USADA with respect to the legal issue before the Court, *I would not be 100% happy if I were USADA*. *Judge Sparks appears to give some credence to arguments that Armstrong has made about the initial notice. *
> 
> I wonder when the emergency appeal will be filed in the Fifth Circuit. I predict no later than tomorrow.


_For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes Armstrong agreed to arbitrate with USADA,
and its arbitration rules are sufficient, if applied reasonably, to satisfy due process. Whether USADA
will attempt to force Armstrong to arbitration against USA Cycling's will, whether the USADA
arbitrators will apply the rules reasonably if the matter does proceed to arbitration, and whether
Armstrong will actually receive a fair hearing, are questions that remain to be answered; but what
is certain is that this Court cannot interfere, contrary to both the will of Congress and Armstrong's
agreement to arbitrate,* on the basis of a speculative injury*. Armstrong's claims are therefore
dismissed._

The arguments/criticisms made by Armstrong are easily remedied.

Huge loss for Armstrong and with the bolded the judge clearly saw that Armstrong recognized how damaging just a reading of the charges are.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

Coolhand said:


> USADA actually comes off really badly in this one.
> 
> Judge Issues Stinging Criticism Of USADA In Armstrong Case | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> ...


The only thing that article illustrates is that Laura Weislo's reading comprehension is extremely sub par.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

I like it that the court pretty much agreed with us on the forum


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Coolhand said:


> USADA actually comes off really badly in this one.
> 
> Judge Issues Stinging Criticism Of USADA In Armstrong Case | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> ...


Not exactly

Spark's decision is 30 pages, most of dedicated to dismantling Armstrong's case. He says clearly that he is not an expert in the WADA code and only reinforces this when he does not understand that USADA can sanction foreigner and that they were only in charge of testing for 2 1/2 years of Armstrong's career. 

His limited criticism of USADA is based more on lack of knowledge then wrong doing by USADA


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

MarkS has read many more decisions than any of us and may wish to comment, but I read Judge Sparks decision as relatively hostile to USADA and almost a primer on "OK, if you want to win next time, here's what you need to do." I got the sense that he was sympathetic to Armstrong's claims but AT PRESENT lacks the legal grounds to intervene.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

OldChipper said:


> MarkS has read many more decisions than any of us and may wish to comment, but I read Judge Sparks decision as relatively hostile to USADA and almost a primer on "OK, if you want to win next time, here's what you need to do." I got the sense that he was sympathetic to Armstrong's claims but AT PRESENT lacks the legal grounds to intervene.


Hostile might be too strong a word for it. But, I would say that Judge Sparks has some skepticism about the entire mess. I agree that Judge Sparks was giving USADA some "guidance." However, unless the arbitration process is completely rigged, I don't see Armstrong being able to come back after the arbitration process is over and have success in federal court Round 2. The standards for challenging an arbitration award in a federal court are extremely high. I read a lot of what Judge Sparks has written as being a sop to the hometown boy to salve his wounds. That stuff will give Armstrong momentary help in the PR war, but I do not see it as having any enduring legal effect.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MarkS said:


> Hostile might be too strong a word for it. But, I would say that Judge Sparks has some skepticism about the entire mess. I agree that Judge Sparks was giving USADA some "guidance." However, unless the arbitration process is completely rigged, I don't see Armstrong being able to come back after the arbitration process is over and have success in federal court Round 2. The standards for challenging an arbitration award in a federal court are extremely high. I read a lot of what Judge Sparks has written as being a sop to the hometown boy to salve his wounds. That stuff will give Armstrong momentary help in the PR war, but I do not see it as having any enduring legal effect.


Sparks comments regarding WADA's process were colored by his lack of understanding of the process. While Armstrong's legal team tried their hardest to paint this as a vendetta USADA focused on the jurisdictional fight. They seldom attempted to correct the intentional obfuscation of Armstrong's smoke and mirrors

As the process plays out it will be clear that this artificial confusion had little basis in fact. Most would be surprised if it was ever revisited


----------



## gordy748 (Feb 11, 2007)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sparks comments regarding WADA's process were colored by his lack of understanding of the process. While Armstrong's legal team tried their hardest to paint this as a vendetta USADA focused on the jurisdictional fight. They seldom attempted to correct the intentional obfuscation of Armstrong's smoke and mirrors
> 
> As the process plays out it will be clear that this artificial confusion had little basis in fact. Most would be surprised if it was ever revisited


Dr Falsetti, you're back. It's hilarious that you are now accusing an American judge of a lack of understanding of the process. It's his court. I think he knows what he's ruling on.

The ruling allows the case to proceed but Sparks complicated the proceedings by giving his judgment without prejudice. Read below:

_"The Court noted during the August 10 hearing, this "charging document" is so vague and unhelpful it would not pass muster in any court in the United States. The Court is assured, however, that Armstrong will be given adequate notice of the specific allegations against him in a timely fashion prior to arbitration, and proceeds under the assumption this will actually occur.

"Indeed, the Court has serious doubts whether USADA' s arbitration procedures would comport with due process if Armstrong were not to receive such notice sufficiently in advance of his arbitration to allow him to prepare a defense."

"As noted above, however, the Court dismisses Armstrong's claims without prejudice. If it should come to pass that Armstrong does not actually receive adequate notice sufficiently in advance of the arbitration hearing, and it is brought to this Court's attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result."_

The essential ruling is that arbitration can proceed but under existing regulations where Armstrong gets to fully review USADA's evidence with appropriate time to do so. USADA need to be very careful not to cross these if they are going to get a positive result (sic).

As is, I reckon the case isn't strong enough to convict Armstrong, though I now have an each-way bet the case will fold under the weight of legal double entendres.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

OldChipper said:


> MarkS has read many more decisions than any of us and may wish to comment, but I read Judge Sparks decision as relatively hostile to USADA and almost a primer on "*OK, if you want to win next time, here's what you need to do*." I got the sense that he was sympathetic to Armstrong's claims but AT PRESENT lacks the legal grounds to intervene.


Newsflash, USADA won, and won big! Next time for Armstrong is too late. The cat is out of the bag. Speculative injury will soon become real injury when the truth comes out. You think Armstrong will sue then?:lol:



MarkS said:


> Hostile might be too strong a word for it. But, I would say that Judge Sparks has some skepticism about the entire mess. I agree that Judge Sparks was giving USADA some "guidance." However, unless the arbitration process is completely rigged,* I don't see Armstrong being able to come back after the arbitration process is over and have success in federal court Round 2*. The *standards for challenging an arbitration award in a federal court are extremely high. I read a lot of what Judge Sparks has written as being a sop to the hometown boy to salve his wounds.* That stuff will give Armstrong momentary help in the PR war, *but I do not see it as having any enduring legal effect*.


'Nice try son, you almost got away with it.'



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Sparks comments regarding WADA's process were colored by his lack of understanding of the process. While Armstrong's legal team tried their hardest to paint this as a vendetta USADA focused on the jurisdictional fight. They seldom attempted to correct the intentional obfuscation of Armstrong's smoke and mirrors
> 
> As the process plays out it will be clear that this artificial confusion had little basis in fact. *Most would be surprised if it was ever revisited*


Too generous. It will never be revisited! You're too nice.



gordy748 said:


> Dr Falsetti, you're back. It's hilarious that you are now accusing an American judge of a lack of understanding of the process.* It's his court. I think he knows what he's ruling on.
> *
> The ruling allows the case to proceed but Sparks complicated the proceedings by giving his judgment without prejudice. Read below:
> 
> ...


Sparks knows what he's ruling on, you're right. He dismissed Armstrong's case. Now after the extent of the Pharmstrong fraud is laid out for all to see, you'll have him filing another federal suit so he gets his as$ kicked again and wastes more money?

I guess 'hope really does spring eternal.'

It's over bro. All except for the :lol: and :cryin:.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

Gordy, I believe Dr. F is referring to the jurisdiction of USADA over non-US citizens in this case. Dr. F. has clarified that contrary to a comment written in the decision by Judge Sparks, USADA does in fact have jurisdition in the matter. A small error in an otherwise complex case with issues that are not often addressed in US court rooms. Futhermore, Judge Sparks said many times over, that he is not an expert on cycling issues and thus it was best to turn it over to arbitration by those much more knowledgeable on cycling matters.

In my reading of the decision, Judge Sparks remained impartial and unbiased by addressing the positive and negatives, for each side. Although it was a clear defeat for Armstrong, Judge Sparks went way out of his way to support his decisions with precedent rulings and even hypothetical outcomes. I give Judge Sparks an A + on his ruling and interpretation of the law.


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

gordy748 said:


> Dr Falsetti, you're back. It's hilarious that you are now accusing an American judge of a lack of understanding of the process. It's his court. I think he knows what he's ruling on.


He and Chris-X's posts are so unerringly in support of USADA, I suspect they are plants.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

gordy748 said:


> Dr Falsetti, you're back. It's hilarious that you are now accusing an American judge of a lack of understanding of the process. It's his court. I think he knows what he's ruling on.


You are confused. If you read what I wrote you will see that I was referring to Sparks understanding of the WADA code. He made several comments that showed he has limited understanding of their rules. His critique was wrong because of his lack of understanding of the process

There really is no reason that he should understand their rules, he is a Federal Judge, not a AAA arbitrator.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

adimiro said:


> Gordy, I believe Dr. F is referring to the jurisdiction of USADA over non-US citizens in this case. Dr. F. has clarified that contrary to a comment written in the decision by Judge Sparks, USADA does in fact have jurisdition in the matter. A small error in an otherwise complex case with issues that are not often addressed in US court rooms. Futhermore, Judge Sparks said many times over, that he is not an expert on cycling issues and thus it was best to turn it over to arbitration by those much more knowledgeable on cycling matters.
> 
> In my reading of the decision, Judge Sparks remained impartial and unbiased by addressing the positive and negatives, for each side. Although it was a clear defeat for Armstrong, Judge Sparks went way out of his way to support his decisions with precedent rulings and even hypothetical outcomes. I give Judge Sparks an A + on his ruling and interpretation of the law.


You say it better then I

Sparks understanding of the law of the USA is what is important in this case. He was spot on in his ruling.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

jorgy said:


> He and Chris-X's posts are so unerringly in support of USADA, I suspect they are plants.


Well it's a clear cut victory for USADA. Those who are unclouded by emotional involvement can see the obvious.

You didn't think a fair outcome of this would favor LA?


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hopefully Lance has to pay back the taxpayer funds he wasted in this farce





> IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the above-styled cause is
> 
> DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and that Plaintiff Lance Armstrong shall bear all
> 
> costs of suit, for which let execution issue.


https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9YzclxcT0NHcWVIOGlncWRCdm8/edit?pli=1


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

This is important because it means we're more likely to hear the details of the doping.

I guess at this point the only way this won't happen is if everyone named just decides to accept the sanctions?

Even if Armstrong does will Bruyneel and Pepi Marti, these two are currently planning on going to arbitration, right?


----------



## jjmstang (May 8, 2009)

If Armstrong accepts the ban then SCA will more than likely sue to get their money back at a tune of $7.5 + million


----------



## jorgy (Oct 21, 2005)

Dwayne Barry said:


> This is important because it means we're more likely to hear the details of the doping.
> 
> I guess at this point the only way this won't happen is if everyone named just decides to accept the sanctions?
> 
> Even if Armstrong does will Bruyneel and Pepi Marti, these two are currently planning on going to arbitration, right?


Iff all the other folks are willing to testify. It's my understanding that Hincapie, Zabriskie, Leipheimer, et al. can't just phone it in via a written statement. I don't know whether a witness can be compelled to testify in an arbitration setting.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

jjmstang said:


> If Armstrong accepts the ban then SCA will more than likely sue to get their money back at a tune of $7.5 + million


They already have the lawsuit drawn up, ready to lauunch. And it will be for more then $7.5 Million


----------



## jjmstang (May 8, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> They already have the lawsuit drawn up, ready to lauunch. And it will be for more then $7.5 Million


Good on them


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

Pedict that Lance will never agree to any type of arbitration and risk losing (fairly or otherwise). He has already foreshadowed his "I am a victim and won't fight anymore" defense and I'm going with this is the card he plays. Although it might cost him alot of $$$ and Tour titles, it avoids him from ever admtting to doping, keeps the "I passed 500+ tests" , and this is just a personal vendetta myths alive.

Achieving martyrdom is a very powerful tool, just look at many political revolutions and religous crusades.


----------



## fontarin (Mar 28, 2009)

adimiro said:


> Pedict that Lance will never agree to any type of arbitration and risk losing (fairly or otherwise). He has already foreshadowed his "I am a victim and won't fight anymore" defense and I'm going with this is the card he plays. Although it might cost him alot of $$$ and Tour titles, it avoids him from ever admtting to doping, keeps the "I passed 500+ tests" , and this is just a personal vendetta myths alive.
> 
> Achieving martyrdom is a very powerful tool, just look at many political revolutions and religous crusades.


Yeah - I said pretty much the same earlier today when talking about it. It's much easier on him - no need to air the dirty laundry USADA might have.


----------



## aptivaboy (Nov 21, 2009)

Agreed. I fail to see why LA would agree to arbitration. He already believes, rightly or wrongly, that any arbitration would be rigged against him. he has no reason to go into arbitration, and every reason to stay out of it. 
_
"The Court noted during the August 10 hearing, this "charging document" is so vague and unhelpful it would not pass muster in any court in the United States. The Court is assured, however, that Armstrong will be given adequate notice of the specific allegations against him in a timely fashion prior to arbitration, and proceeds under the assumption this will actually occur.

"Indeed, the Court has serious doubts whether USADA' s arbitration procedures would comport with due process if Armstrong were not to receive such notice sufficiently in advance of his arbitration to allow him to prepare a defense."

"As noted above, however, the Court dismisses Armstrong's claims without prejudice. If it should come to pass that Armstrong does not actually receive adequate notice sufficiently in advance of the arbitration hearing, and it is brought to this Court's attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result." _

Pretty clearly, Judge Sparks is anticipating that this case will be brought right back to his court at some point in the future, and he's setting the parameters for the future. All Lance has to show is that he was denied information and evidence in a timely fashion in order to argue a due process claim. Its important to note that Judge Sparks simply stated that LA's due process claim was premature - there had been no due process violation *yet*. However, he's clearly troubles that one could very easily be a short distance away. I read the ruling as very much a warning to USADA, and not as a sound defeat for LA.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

fontarin said:


> Yeah - I said pretty much the same earlier today when talking about it. It's much easier on him - no need to air the dirty laundry USADA might have.


It will still be aired. Even if he has a closed hearing if he loses USADA can dump all the evidence into their finding of fact


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*Pretty clearly*



aptivaboy said:


> Agreed. I fail to see why LA would agree to arbitration. He already believes, rightly or wrongly, that any arbitration would be rigged against him. he has no reason to go into arbitration, and every reason to stay out of it.
> _
> "The Court noted during the August 10 hearing, this "charging document" is so vague and unhelpful it would not pass muster in any court in the United States. The Court is assured, however, that Armstrong will be given adequate notice of the specific allegations against him in a timely fashion prior to arbitration, and proceeds under the assumption this will actually occur.
> 
> ...


You're engaging in wishful thinking.


_This leaves only challenge (1). As the Court stated at the hearing, and has alluded to above,
the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern. Indeed, but for
two facts, the Court might be inclined to find USADA's charging letter was a violation of due
process, and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder.* First, it would likely be of no practical
effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would
presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later,
only poorer for their legal fees. *Second, and *more important, USADA's counsel represented to the
Court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against
him at a time reasonably before arbitration, in accordance with routine procedure. The Court takes counsel at his word. .
*_

_*With the understanding Armstrong has received all the process he is due at
this time, and will receive adequate notification of the charges against him in time to prepare a
defense, the Court rejects Armstrong's first challenge*._


_For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes Armstrong agreed to arbitrate with USADA,
and its arbitration rules are sufficient, if applied reasonably, to satisfy due process. Whether USADA
will attempt to force Armstrong to arbitration against USA Cycling's will, whether the USADA
arbitrators will apply the rules reasonably if the matter does proceed to arbitration, and whether
Armstrong will actually receive a fair hearing, are questions that remain to be answered; *but what
is certain is that this Court cannot interfere, contrary to both the will of Congress and Armstrong's
agreement to arbitrate, on the basis of a speculative injury.* Armstrong's claims are therefore
dismissed_

It's "certain this Court cannot interfere" and due process claims by Armstrong would be "of no practical effect" equates to your belief that Judge Sparks anticipates the case will be back in his court?:idea:


----------



## fontarin (Mar 28, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> It will still be aired. Even if he has a closed hearing if he loses USADA can dump all the evidence into their finding of fact


I'm talking about if he just accepts the ban to avoid it. If he doesn't do the arbitration at all, would USADA have a legitimate reason to share it?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

fontarin said:


> I'm talking about if he just accepts the ban to avoid it. If he doesn't do the arbitration at all, would USADA have a legitimate reason to share it?


Yes, in fact they would forced to include their evidence in the statement of fact otherwise Lance would always pretend there was no evidence.


----------



## 95zpro (Mar 28, 2010)

LA's hubris will not allow him to take any sanctions, so I think he will go to arbitration and try to refute any and all evidence. He still wants to compete in triathlons so he will do whatever it takes to save face.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

jorgy said:


> He and Chris-X's posts are so unerringly in support of USADA, I suspect they are plants.


Is Judge Sparks a plant? All the previous legal precedents are wrong? How about MarkS who predicted exactly what would happen and when it did happen, accurately summarized the result? He's not an expert? Why not reread what he's posted? Even the stuff you pro Armstrong guys are seizing on, MarkS identified as sop to ease the blow to Armstrong for his arguments being thoroughly rebuked, as precedent predicted he would be?

What do you want to see happen here? It's not like everyone with brain waves doesn't know Armstrong is a fraud.

Jeez, I guess you're wrong.:cryin:

That's never happened before?:wink:

For me personally, I get exasperated with inane arguments. I haven't a clue why you support Armstrong because it makes no sense whatsoever. That's fine. What's not fine is that because of your support, you label people who are just telling you what's obvious to those who aren't in thrall to Armstrong.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Laura's report on Cyclingnews generated a fair amount of controversy. She responded




> After putting that up, and reading the 30 page decision, while simultaneously trying to balance production of the Vuelta coverage, writing and posting other news like Voigt signing w/ RSNT, catching up on Portugal results after getting abusive emails about it, trying to get a straight answer from the UCI about their next steps in the Armstrong case, and fielding an interview from an Austin radio station ... I set out to do the follow up story on the aspect of the decision I found to be most newsworthy: the harsh criticism the judge had for USADA.
> 
> *Sure, I could have written another 1000 words picking apart each point the judge made that highlighted his lack of knowledge of doping history, the politics of cycling's governance etc. etc., but I was flying solo and had to put out the narrowest possible piece I could.*
> 
> I am pleased that our readers are knowledgeable enough to read between the lines and see that there is much more to the story. That narrow report was not meant to be a full analysis of the decision


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Read the WHOLE sentence, Chris.The court can't intervene on the basis of *speculative* injury. If LA doesn't get what the court deems is due process and is sanctioned, *that* is real injury and the court may then choose, and have grounds to, act.


----------



## fontarin (Mar 28, 2009)

OldChipper said:


> Read the WHOLE sentence, Chris.The court can't intervene on the basis of *speculative* injury. If LA doesn't get what the court deems is due process and is sanctioned, *that* is real injury and the court may then choose, and have grounds to, act.


I think that could probably be argued, too, though. If he doesn't get what he considers due process from the USADA, the proper channel is to appeal to CAS, not the court system.


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

Anybody know the date of the next action in the arbitration?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

David Loving said:


> Anybody know the date of the next action in the arbitration?


Thursday. Armstrong has to say if he is going to fight or flee


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

OK - and we have the Vuelta a Espana to watch, too. Problem is the cloud of doping really makes these races hard to get interesting, IMO


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

It has been interesting to read all the comments. When I put on my lawyer hat, I think that overall the USADA attorneys would be nervous.

My take for what it is worth.

1. Sparks refuses to dismiss the charges, and says go to arbitration if you want to challenge.

Win for USADA. They get to keep this on their home court. 52 - 2. This point was the must win for USADA. From Lance's standpoint this was a long shot to get an outright win. They will focus on the rest of the decision.

2. Need to exhaust remedies and show irreparable harm before any intervention.

USADA raised this legal point, and cannot complain that it is in the decision, but I bet they are wondering if the judge is sending a message. There is an implication that if Lance does exhaust his remedies and the arbitration decision goes against him that Sparks might take the case on the merits. Right now this is an unknown and lawyers don't like unknowns. 

3. Lance's complaint that he cannot mount a defence without recieving all the investigative file is easily remedied. 

This is a get it done statement. Who knows what the USADA intentions were regarding disclosure, but I bet there is some uneasiness now. The more time Lance's attorneys have with the information and the more information that has to be disclosed the better chance they have to discredit the case and to point out inconsistencies. 

4. The comment on due process is strange. 

Due process usually only applies against government entities. The Feds concluded their investigation and have declined to press any charges. This is a civil matter between the USADA and a private citizen. The due process standard that applies to government agencies is a higher standard that would normally apply to a private dispute and arbitration. USADA attorneys have to be trying to figure this one out.

5 Sparks questioned the motivation of the USADA in pursuing this matter. 

This cannot be a good thing for the USADA. Will he pull out an implied covenent of good faith and fair dealing to apply to a private matter?

My speculation is that the Judge is trying to press both sides to come to an agreement. He supports the USADA on the key legal points, but also sends a message out that he may take the matter up again if Lance loses and comes back to challenge the process after the decision. 

I would like to hear from some of the lawyers as to what I have missed. I find the whole decision somewhat strange.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

OldChipper said:


> Read the WHOLE sentence, Chris.The court can't intervene on the basis of *speculative* injury. If LA doesn't get what the court deems is due process and is sanctioned, *that* is real injury and the court may then choose, and have grounds to, act.


chip,

what you fail to comprehend is that armstrong will get his "due process" he's duped you into thinking he's so concerned about.

"Due process" was just a pretext to keep this thing from going to arbitration. Now that it's going to arbitration the evidence will be revealed. The bromance will be over soon for most when they start hearing the extent of the fraud.

Even if by some miracle armstrong prevailed with this due process stupidity, the cat would be out of the bag, which is really what armstrong wanted to avoid in the first place.


----------



## DMFT (Feb 3, 2005)

You "really" think so there Christopher? There really is no new evidence except some elevated hematocrit during the "comeback years" that's "news" to anyone.

- It's also easily argued that his living and training in Aspen at elevation during that period will cover that...


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

DMFT said:


> You "really" think so there Christopher? There really is no new evidence except some elevated hematocrit during the "comeback years" that's "news" to anyone.
> 
> - It's also easily argued that his living and training in Aspen at elevation during that period will cover that...


Hincapie and the 10 or so others don't provide any new evidence?

As for your hematocrit assertions, I don't think 88rex or local hero will be testifying.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

DMFT said:


> You "really" think so there Christopher? There really is no new evidence except some elevated hematocrit during the "comeback years" that's "news" to anyone.
> 
> - It's also easily argued that his living and training in Aspen at elevation during that period will cover that...


USADA has only released evidence that is already in the public domain. Over 10 riders and also staff and other witnesses

Please explain how rect drops while hct increases at Altitude. 

thanks :thumbsup:
.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Herbie said:


> It has been interesting to read all the comments. When I put on my lawyer hat, I think that overall the USADA attorneys would be nervous.
> 
> My take for what it is worth.
> 
> ...


Sparks does not know much about USADA' and the WADA code so it is understandable that he would be confused. 

Lance will get all the evidence and be able to cross examine witnesses. 

USADA is pursuing this case because it is their mandate. If they ignored the direct witness testimony of over a dozen witnesses they would not be doing their job


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

I get what you are saying, but:

1. Sparks probably does understand the USADA's code etc. The USADA's attorneys briefed all the issues and would have provided him with all the information.

2. Why had the USADA not already made the evidence available? (this is a real question, not a statement disguised as a question.) Is there a procedure as to time frame for disclosure, some limits on what needs to be disclosed etc. One of the reasons I ask is that I saw some information that there was a dispute over disclosure of any offers made to witnesses in exchange for testimony. My take was that Sparks was annoyed that the disclosure information had not been taken care of already. 

3. Seems to me that Sparks has some doubts about the motive. I am sure that the USADA would agree with your statement regarding motive. 

In any case I would still be nervous if I was representing the USADA. Sparks could have issued a one line ruling stating that the parties had agreed to arbitration and he would not interfere. end of story. anything more is a message to the parties. 

I think we are a long way from seeing the end of this one.

Take this to another level. If you were Lance what would you do? I think he has nothing to lose at this point. Go to arbitration. If you lose you go back to court. The judge has already sent some signals of encouragement.


----------



## aptivaboy (Nov 21, 2009)

Chris, 

_Second, and more important, USADA's counsel represented to the Court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA's claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration, in accordance with routine procedure. The Court takes counsel at his word. ._

That's one of the keys to Judge Sparks' decision. USADA must come clean with pretty much everything evidence-wise so that Lance can begin to mount a defense. If they don't, then yes, Lance can make a due process claim right back in Judge Sparks' courtroom. He is taking them at their word, but if they disappoint him and fail at keeping their word... Get it? The fact that USADA hasn't yet given Lance the evidence that it claims to have collected is clearly troubling to the good judge. However, there has yet been no damage to Lance because the arbitration process hasn't yet gone through. When it does, and if Lance can show that USADA didn't give him its evidence in a timely and proper fashion, then we could see this thing boomerang right back into court. USADA is a quasi-governmental entity, getting at least some of its funding from the US government, Olympic committee, the American taxpayer, etc. Therefore, if it fails on a due process claim then a US federal court, and by extension Judge Sparks, certainly possesses jurisdiction. 

_With the understanding Armstrong has received all the process he is due at this time, and will receive adequate notification of the charges against him in time to prepare a defense, the Court rejects Armstrong's first challenge._

Note the words, "at this time," Chris. They are the key to that section. At this time, there has been no due process violation - at this time. Therefore, Judge Sparks is dismissing Lance's claim. However, if there is in the future? Look out, USADA. Lance's claim was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that he can refile it later if USADA doesn't act in good faith under the rules, and disclosing all relevant evidence so that Lance can mount a timely defense. What if USADA fails to give Lance "adequate notification of the charges against him?" That's a due process violation, and if that occurs then the good judge will see the parties again. 

None of the is wishful thinking, as you put it. Judge Sparks gave USADA a nice, stern warning about its conduct and about what it needs to do to stay out of his courtroom in the future. Seriously, this ruling is less a defeat for Lance and more a firm correction for USADA. Judge Sparks has politely informed them of precisely what he expects them to do in the future. He is clearly annoyed that they haven't yet done so. 

Robert


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Herbie said:


> I get what you are saying, but:
> 
> 1. Sparks probably does understand the USADA's code etc. The USADA's attorneys briefed all the issues and would have provided him with all the information.
> 
> ...


I agree completely Herbie and aptivaboy. I'm not an attorney but I've read more than a few decisions and this one is not typical for a dismissal. In particular his comments about how long it took for USADA to act, the actions of USAC and UCI, and his "taking USADA at their word" that they would provide due process are clear concerns/messages. Plus of course dismissing without prejudice. He's leaving the door wide open for future intervention, cautioning USADA to get their ducks in a row, and providing LA's team with a primer for how to proceed to get him to accept the case.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Chris-X said:


> chip,
> 
> what you fail to comprehend is that armstrong will get his "due process" he's duped you into thinking he's so concerned about.
> 
> ...


For the nth time... no bromance here. The concepts that Armstrong doped AND that USADA is not behaving/proceeding properly (from a number of perspectives) are not mutually incompatible. The ends don't justify the means.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

OldChipper said:


> For the nth time... no bromance here. The concepts that Armstrong doped AND that USADA is not behaving/proceeding properly (from a number of perspectives) are not mutually incompatible. The ends don't justify the means.


When/if Armstrong decides to take this to arbitration he will get all of the evidence against him and have ample time to prepare a defense.

He's a lot more concerned about the evidence and its effect on his PR than he is about any of these bogus "due process" issues.

Unless his attorneys can limit the scope of the arbitration, he's done.

The idea that USADA is behaving improperly has been manufactured out of whole cloth by Armstrong and his paid liars.

I'm sure he reads the internets and will be pleased that he still has so many of his defenders buying this nonsense.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

Not much mention that there are multiple charges against Lance besides the simple 'you doped' . As listed in Sparks ruling, this is also why the USADA is seeking much harsher punishment than 'usual'.

The charges also contain conspiracy to run a a systematic doping program, possessing and trafficing in EPO, steroids, etc. 

IOW, the Lance legal defense team has their hands quite full and he may be exonerated on one charge, but not all.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Herbie said:


> I get what you are saying, but:
> 
> 1. Sparks probably does understand the USADA's code etc. The USADA's attorneys briefed all the issues and would have provided him with all the information.
> 
> ...


I have yet to see any legit concerns about USADA, but I am open to hearing them if you find any

Lance gets all the evidence when the case enters the discover phase.....which starts tomorrow. This is clearly spelled out in the WADA code, which USADA has followed correctly

This case was about jurisdiction. Certainly USADA could have done what Lance's legal did and clogged the courts with unrelated stuff like the WADA process but they focused on jurisdiction.....and won. 

As for the timing, the only people to blame are Lance/Hein/Pat. USADA only did the testing for 2 1/2 years of Armstrong career. The UCI and Armstrong actively conspired to cover up positive tests and intimidate witnesses for over a decade. it was not until Landis broke the floodgates that USADA had enough witnesses to take on Lance. 

I don't think this is far form over, in fact it is almost done. I expect Lance to not fight in AAA but to launch his normal smear fest in the media


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> For the nth time... no bromance here. The concepts that Armstrong doped AND that USADA is not behaving/proceeding properly (from a number of perspectives) are not mutually incompatible. The ends don't justify the means.


Do you have an example of USADA not behaving properly? I have yet to see a legit concern.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Herbie said:


> It has been interesting to read all the comments. When I put on my lawyer hat, I think that overall the USADA attorneys would be nervous.
> 
> I would like to hear from some of the lawyers as to what I have missed. *I find the whole decision somewhat strange*.


I have read the decision several times and come to different conclusions each time that I read it. The only thing about which I am truly certain is your statement that I have bolded. I thought that this was a simple case and decision should have been fairly straightforward -- there is an abitration provision that delegates to the arbitrator any questions about scope, thus, off to arbitration you go. Period. The decision spends a lot of time addressing other things. On the one hand, as I have said above, I see this merely as a sop to Armstrong. But, I also can read it as a warning to USADA.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MarkS said:


> I have read the decision several times and come to different conclusions each time that I read it. The only thing about which I am truly certain is your statement that I have bolded. I thought that this was a simple case and decision should have been fairly straightforward -- there is an abitration provision that delegates to the arbitrator any questions about scope, thus, off to arbitration you go. Period. The decision spends a lot of time addressing other things. On the one hand, as I have said above, *I see this merely as a sop to Armstrong. But, I also can read it as a warning to USADA.*


I certainly saw it as a warning to USADA. A warning based more on a lack of understanding of the facts then any questionable behavior by USADA. 

Sparks confusion about the Timing, Foreign nationals, and sharing of evidence are more the result of obfuscation by Armstrong legal team not misconduct by USADA


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

Doc, I guess we will find out about how close this is to being over. I don't see any reason for Lance not to fight on. If he quits now, he accepts the penalties, and becomes old news. If he wants to only run a smear campaign, what better forum than the arbitration and then an appeal to the court. 

My prediction is that this will be back in court before the arbitration hearing. There will be a dispute over the disclosures. Lance will claim that USADA is holding back relevent material, and USADA will claim that they are complying with the arbitration agreement. Then we get to see what Sparks thinks of the private entity vs. quasi governmental agency status. 

I don't know if there is any binding authority regarding the status of the USADA at this time. I am sure USADA would like to maintain the status of a private agency so as to avoid the higher standard imposed on governmental agencies under the constitution. 



What I would realy like to know, and of course never will is what sort of negotiations are going on between the attorneys behind closed doors.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Herbie said:


> Doc, I guess we will find out about how close this is to being over. I don't see any reason for Lance not to fight on. If he quits now, he accepts the penalties, and becomes old news. If he wants to only run a smear campaign, what better forum than the arbitration and then an appeal to the court.
> 
> My prediction is that this will be back in court before the arbitration hearing. There will be a dispute over the disclosures. Lance will claim that USADA is holding back relevent material, and USADA will claim that they are complying with the arbitration agreement. Then we get to see what Sparks thinks of the private entity vs. quasi governmental agency status.
> 
> ...


I doubt there is any negotiation. USADA knows they have overwhleming evidence of guilt, and Lance knows this as well. Taking it to arbitration means millions in legal costs and failure. It also gives USADA months to educate the public on their case and their role. 

If he gives up now he saves millions. He can spew "Witch hunt, rigged process" etc to an uneducated public and smear all the witnesses.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you have an example of USADA not behaving properly? I have yet to see a legit concern.


And yet, a Federal judge does.

I'm also speaking more generally. It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to "get" LA, then maybe I don't have too many concerns other than those Judge Sparks elucidates. If the goal is to clean up cycling in the fastest, most efficient way possible, there are better ways to proceed if one is comfortable with the "turning state's evidence" approach and if one isn't emotionally wedded to publicly "getting" LA, JB, McQuaid, et al. Short version: "see we have iron-clad proof, you all retire, you keep your titles/legacy/whatever, we install a new administration that's going to follow the rules, and everyone avoids an expensive, sport-besmirching, mud-wrestling match."

One problem is that it's obviously gotten personal and that never bodes well for an arbitration or a litigation. And, yes, this does involve some ends-justifying, but most involved seem OK with that already.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> And yet, a Federal judge does.
> 
> I'm also speaking more generally. It depends on what the goal is. If the goal is to "get" LA, then maybe I don't have too many concerns other than those Judge Sparks elucidates. If the goal is to clean up cycling in the fastest, most efficient way possible, there are better ways to proceed if one is comfortable with the "turning state's evidence" approach and if one isn't emotionally wedded to publicly "getting" LA, JB, McQuaid, et al. Short version: "see we have iron-clad proof, you all retire, you keep your titles/legacy/whatever, we install a new administration that's going to follow the rules, and everyone avoids an expensive, sport-besmirching, mud-wrestling match."
> 
> One problem is that it's obviously gotten personal and that never bodes well for an arbitration or a litigation. And, yes, this does involve some ends-justifying, but most involved seem OK with that already.


Again, is there a legit concern? 

The judge points out the timeliness of this action. It is clear he does not realize that the UCI was in charge of testing for most of Armstrong's career. They actively ignored and enabled Armstrong's doping. Landis broke the dam, resulting in a flood of evidence. lets not pretend that there is any validity to the idea that USADA sat on this for 14 years....they did not. 

It is clear that USADA is following their rules. They are allowed to sanction foreigners, they have given Armstrong proper notice, and he will receive all the evidence, and be able to cross examine witnesses.....if he choses

We shouldn't confuse Sparks lack of understanding of the WADA process and the history of the UCI to mean there is validity to his concerns. There isn't.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

I hope someone sent a reminder memo to Lance and legal team of the August 23 arbitration deadline before they go crying to Judge Sparks that they were not afforded due process., lol, desperate times for Lance.


----------



## Kliemann53 (Jun 25, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you have an example of USADA not behaving properly? I have yet to see a legit concern.


Read USADA vs Landis (dissent) Its on the USADA's web site under testing,arbitration dicisions.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Kliemann53 said:


> Read USADA vs Landis (dissent) Its on the USADA's web site under testing,arbitration dicisions.


Couldn't easily find it on the USADA site, but google found it:

http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/LandisFinalDissent.pdf

Wow. Just. Wow. 

Certainly bolsters the witch hunt argument. The info on the WADA Lab Directors' code of "ethics" is particularly sobering. Seems like there's some omertà on both sides.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> Couldn't easily find it on the USADA site, but google found it:
> 
> http://www.usada.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/LandisFinalDissent.pdf
> 
> ...


Read the CAS decision. It shreds this


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

I will, but it's hard to imagine shredding un-paid expert witness testimony that says the lab results are "inconsistent with known science." Plus the serious chain of custody problems. Or are the only experts whose opinions count those who find that doping has occurred? Also, once again, my issue is with the process. Lab Directors can't testify against other labs if they know errors have occurred? This is a fair process aimed at determining the truth? The more I learn, the more it sounds like the process is guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, and I have a problem with that.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Read the CAS decision. It shreds this


OK, scanned it enough to say... You really think that shreds the dissenting opinion? Wow. There might not be much point in further discussion. The lab says despite errors and omissions that it did everything right and everyone takes their word for it? Throughout all this, there's a thread of: "yeah this sounds unfair, but it's what our rules say" and self validation. I actually come away from this foray into the anti-doping world with grave reservations about what's going on yet I came in mostly thinking everything was in the up and up. An interesting education.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

OldChipper said:


> I will, but it's hard to imagine shredding un-paid expert witness testimony that says the lab results are "inconsistent with known science." Plus the serious chain of custody problems. Or are the only experts whose opinions count those who find that doping has occurred? Also, once again, my issue is with the process. Lab Directors can't testify against other labs if they know errors have occurred? *This is a fair process aimed at determining the truth?* *The more I learn, the more it sounds like the process is guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, and I have a problem with that*.


Lots of false negatives. Hincapie, Vaughters, Zabriskie, Vandevelde. Hamilton and Landis were doping for years and they only had 1 positive each.

The Landis dissent you cite. The truth wasn't determined in that case?

Marion Jones.... Michelle Smith got away with it.

Kohl, spoke eloquently about false negatives.

Guilty until proven innocent?

Show me a false positive.

You should rest easy knowing the Armstrong case is a non analytical positive.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

OldChipper said:


> OK, scanned it enough to say... You really think that shreds the dissenting opinion? Wow. There might not be much point in further discussion. The lab says despite errors and omissions that it did everything right and everyone takes their word for it? Throughout all this, there's a thread of: "yeah this sounds unfair, but it's what our rules say" and self validation. I actually come away from this foray into the anti-doping world with grave reservations about what's going on yet I came in mostly thinking everything was in the up and up. An interesting education.


I suggest you open a thread if you would like to discuss the landis case further. You will have an opportunity shortly as there will be a lot of Floyd news coming out soon

The fact is the concerns raised in his defense were unfounded. Don't forget that Floyd's observer tried to disrupt the testing and they intentionally misinterpreted the data entry. If you want to learn how to create confusion about the process then Floyd and Tyler's cases are good ones to look at

regardless, none of this applies to the Armstrong case were we have over a dozen direct witnesses.

Armstrong will fold. The evidence that he doped is overwhelming, time to move on


----------



## pretender (Sep 18, 2007)

So how's it going to happen? Will there be some sort of announcement today, or does the clock just run out?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

pretender said:


> So how's it going to happen? Will there be some sort of announcement today, or does the clock just run out?


Expect an announcement, and interviews, with both sides in the next couple days.


----------



## juno (Jul 18, 2008)

It is undoubtedly a clear warning to USADA. Whether or not you think Judge Sparks completely understands the USADA rules is pretty much irrelevant. I take it as he is saying that it is a witch hunt in his opinion and yes they have the right to continue the arbitration but whatever processes and rules they have better be followed to a T or LA will be able to come back to court. At that point he will judge if their 'process' was followed correctly.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

juno said:


> It is undoubtedly a clear warning to USADA. Whether or not you think Judge Sparks completely understands the USADA rules is pretty much irrelevant. I take it as he is saying that it is a witch hunt in his opinion and yes they have the right to continue the arbitration but whatever processes and rules they have better be followed to a T or LA will be able to come back to court. At that point he will judge if their 'process' was followed correctly.


Thanks for outing yourself.:thumbsup:


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

juno said:


> It is undoubtedly a clear warning to USADA. Whether or not you think Judge Sparks completely understands the USADA rules is pretty much irrelevant. I take it as he is saying that it is a witch hunt in his opinion and yes they have the right to continue the arbitration but whatever processes and rules they have better be followed to a T or LA will be able to come back to court. At that point he will judge if their 'process' was followed correctly.




Juno, this not a threat, a 'warning' or an opinion of a 'witch hunt', it is lawyer-talk. It would be irresponsible and negligent of his judge duties if he didn't make this statement. Of course, Lance (and anyone else) should in fact be allowed to comeback and claim lack of due process and fairness if they were not given full disclosure during an arbitration. Nobody disagrees with this. THe Lance fans are grasping for anythig on this rapidly sinking ship.


----------



## juno (Jul 18, 2008)

Ha! Haters!

Wow, A judge takes the time to deliberatey and clearly state his opinion and you just ignore it. You read the headline "Judge dismisses case" and ignore any content that does not have LA hanging by his one remaining testicle.

This is not over by far. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The Judge realizes that if their process is not perfect and if Lance does not accept something then the case will be back in his court because he knows Lance won't give up. So, yes, he is warning them, possibly both parties, but more on the USADA side because it is their process. Come to a settlement or make sure you have your poop together because I don't want to deal with this.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

juno said:


> Ha! Haters!
> 
> Wow, A judge takes the time to deliberatey and clearly state his opinion and you just ignore it. You read the headline "Judge dismisses case" and ignore any content that does not have LA hanging by his one remaining testicle.
> 
> Put down the joint and stop drinking the hater kool-aid. This is not over by far. *The Judge realizes that if their process is not perfect and if Lance does not accept something then the case will be back in his court because he knows Lance won't give up*.


Did the judge say anything about high cadence?:idea:


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

adimiro said:


> Juno, this not a threat, a 'warning' or an opinion of a 'witch hunt', it is lawyer-talk. It would be irresponsible and negligent of his judge duties if he didn't make this statement. Of course, Lance (and anyone else) should in fact be allowed to comeback and claim lack of due process and fairness if they were not given full disclosure during an arbitration. Nobody disagrees with this. THe Lance fans are grasping for anythig on this rapidly sinking ship.


The watertight compartments have been flooded and the hull is about to crack open like a walnut just about now...


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

juno said:


> Ha! Haters!
> 
> Wow, A judge takes the time to deliberatey and clearly state his opinion and you just ignore it. You read the headline "Judge dismisses case" and ignore any content that does not have LA hanging by his one remaining testicle.
> 
> This is not over by far. It has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The Judge realizes that if their process is not perfect and if Lance does not accept something then the case will be back in his court because he knows Lance won't give up. So, yes, he is warning them, possibly both parties, but more on the USADA side because it is their process. Come to a settlement or make sure you have your poop together because I don't want to deal with this.


Whoa Juno... it is clear that you have not read the 30 page Spark's ruling in it's entirety. Furthermore, no one wants anything less than FULL DISCLOSURE by the USDA of witnesses, expert testimony, cover ups, conspiracies, etc. and the evidence analyzed and debated by both sides. Nobody wants an unfair arbitration, but everyone does want Lance to proceed with arbitration and let the evidence speak for itself.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

adimiro said:


> Nobody wants an unfair arbitration, but everyone does want Lance to proceed with arbitration and let the evidence speak for itself.


Not Lance and his cohorts


----------



## MikeBiker (Mar 9, 2003)

adimiro said:


> Whoa Juno... it is clear that you have not read the 30 page Spark's ruling in it's entirety. Furthermore, no one wants anything less than FULL DISCLOSURE by the USDA of witnesses, expert testimony, cover ups, conspiracies, etc. and the evidence analyzed and debated by both sides. Nobody wants an unfair arbitration, but everyone does want Lance to proceed with arbitration and let the evidence speak for itself.


Why doesn't Lance just give the arbitrator 'the look'. That should give him the win.


----------

