# Armstrong v. USADA -- the next steps



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Last week, Judge Sparks gave the parties until today to submit supplemental letters and then he will rule on the case that Armstrong has filed in federal district court in Austin. The USADA has postponed until next Thursday, August 23, the deadline for Armstrong's responding pending Judge Sparks' ruling.

Although I think that Judge Sparks should throw out Armstrong's case or stay it pending the USADA proceedings, it is possible that he might go the other way. In any event, given the legal talent involved in the case and apparent desire by Armstrong to try every argument and pursue every avenue to defeat USADA, I do not expect that the federal litigation will be over once Judge Sparks rules. Here is what you should expect, especially if Armstrong loses:

1. The losing party will file for an emergency stay pending appeal. The stay initially may be heard by a single judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit pursuant to Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and/or heard by a panel of three judges of the Court. I do not have any experience with the Fifth Circuit, but in the Fourth Circuit, single judges often have heard and ruled on emergency stays within hours of the district court's ruling. Given the Fifth Circuit's experience in death penalty cases where emergency motions are commonplace, I would expect that the Fifth Circuit would deal with a motion for an emergency stay fairly quickly, if not within hours at least within days. Sometimes a single judge will ask the party opposing the motion if the party will hold off acting for some period of time, a few days to a few weeks, to allow time for a three-judge panel to address the motion.

2. If the party loses in the Fifth Circuit, the party can apply to a single justice of the Supreme Court of the United States for a stay. Justice Scalia is the Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit and the application would first go to him. He could rule on it or refer it to the entire court. Again, using death penalty cases as guide, Justice Scalia and/or the full court could rule on the motion within hours or days.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

For real you think this money-fueled bogus Armstrong lawsuit will receive the same atttention, emergency stay and even a supreme court justice hearing on the same level as a 'death penalty' case???!?!?!?!?


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Recent news of USA Cycling support of UCI in the UCI's quest for jurisdiction in the case is really, really shady. The disappointing thing is that USA Cycling has now contacted the U.S. District Court judge overseeing Armstrong'scoherent case to demand that the UCI should have jurisdiction over USADA.

The UCI is complicit in all this underhanded cheating. There is no way that Armstrong is going down for all the years of EPO use if the UCI does get jurisdiction. Sadly, I think Armstrong is going to get away with all of it.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

adimiro said:


> For real you think this money-fueled bogus Armstrong lawsuit will receive the same atttention, emergency stay and even a supreme court justice hearing on the same level as a 'death penalty' case???!?!?!?!?


The emergency procedures I outlined are available in any federal case in which a district judge grants or denies an injunction. It is rare that the appeals court and/or othe Supreme Court actually grants relief upon emergency motions Thus, most litigants even if they could avail themselves of the procedures don't because of the cost versus the likely benefit. What I said is that one should expect Armtrong to avail himself of any and every avenue of appeal. I did not say that he will receive the same attention as a death penalty case. My expectation is that the Fifth Circuit and Justice Scalia (or the entire Supreme Court if Scalia refers any application to the entire Court) will deny any emergency appeal in short order. But, they will consider it.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

Mark, thanks for this write-up. This case seems to be playing out in many venues.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

Very cool to have an experienced attorney commenting.
It is a very, very interesting evolution. This is a story well worth watching
USADA is going to win in the end against the UCI. The cost of the battle could be considerable. How it fares in arbitration is anyones guess...unless you know the evidence. If Johan goes down after his arbitration then the writing would be on the wall. Armstrong will be the next to fall.
Then again I thought Gilbert was going to have his breakout year this summer. So I could be wrong.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

rook said:


> Recent news of USA Cycling support of UCI in the UCI's quest for jurisdiction in the case is really, really shady. The disappointing thing is that USA Cycling has now contacted the U.S. District Court judge overseeing Armstrong'scoherent case to demand that the UCI should have jurisdiction over USADA.
> 
> The UCI is complicit in all this underhanded cheating. There is no way that Armstrong is going down for all the years of EPO use if the UCI does get jurisdiction. Sadly, I think Armstrong is going to get away with all of it.


It certainly is no surprise that USAC would support Armstrong. His buddy Weisel bought the Board several years ago. - TF


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

*USADA v UCI*



zoikz said:


> Very cool to have an experienced attorney commenting.
> It is a very, very interesting evolution. This is a story well worth watching
> USADA is going to win in the end against the UCI. The cost of the battle could be considerable. How it fares in arbitration is anyones guess...unless you know the evidence. If Johan goes down after his arbitration then the writing would be on the wall. Armstrong will be the next to fall.
> Then again I thought Gilbert was going to have his breakout year this summer. So I could be wrong.


is the whole ball of wax.

LA wants to avoid the arbitration at all costs. 

We all know the evidence.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 9, 2008)

It seems to me the problem with predicting the next steps is that Armstrong is able to pull strings and exert influence in ways that toss any sort of normal analysis out the window. He got a federal criminal indictment spiked seemingly out of the blue, so I think any look in the future has to assume Armstrong will have help coming from people/organizations that as of right now we aren't factoring in. That's why I consider it very likely that he'll beat the rap again.


----------



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

This forum's gonna need a whole lot of tissues for when Armstrong gets off. 

Do we all know the evidence? No, USASA has kept its evidence private if you missed that part of the story. Lance wanting to avoid arbitration is understandable - because of the bravado coming out of USADA it's pretty obvious they have no mind whatsoever to allow Armstrong to win in arbitration. Even though its clear their claims aren't backed by any conclusive scientific evidence, a positive drug test, or anything at all other than "he said and he said".


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Tomahawk said:


> This forum's gonna need a whole lot of tissues for when Armstrong gets off.
> 
> Do we all know the evidence? No, USASA has kept its evidence private if you missed that part of the story. Lance wanting to avoid arbitration is understandable - because of the bravado coming out of USADA it's pretty obvious they have no mind whatsoever to allow Armstrong to win in arbitration. Even though its clear their claims aren't backed by any conclusive scientific evidence, a positive drug test, or anything at all other than "he said and he said".


Armstrong gets all the evidence and gets to cross examine witnesses. 

The have over a dozen witnesses and blood values that are consistent with EPO and transfusions 

If Lance does not like the process he should not have signed up for it. He should also be angry at his agent, Bill Stapleton, who wrote much of the process while serving as an USIOC board member


----------



## Tomahawk (May 4, 2012)

"Blood values that are consistent with EPO and transfusions" - which essentially means nothing. It didn't count for a positive test and wasn't picked up on at the time because it fluctuated within the rules. Right or wrong, USADA uses that line because they have no other scientific evidence to support themselves. Were the blood values any more irregular than other contenders at the time? 

It doesn't really matter what the legal technicalities are - Lance and the friends he has are bigger than USADA. Too many powers moving against them now, Lance will get off.

They should have been smarter than to pick this fight. But I guess they needed to justify their existence for something. Most professional athletes dope, a obscure little branch of bureaucracy needs to prop themselves up with a head or two to keep themselves relevant.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Tomahawk said:


> "Blood values that are consistent with EPO and transfusions" - which essentially means nothing. It didn't count for a positive test and wasn't picked up on at the time because it fluctuated within the rules.


I guess you're not keeping up with the standard of proof for the various sanctions are you? AAF, >90% (I can't remember the exact percentage per Ashenden), AAA, >50%. <90 does not prove <50.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Tomahawk said:


> "Blood values that are consistent with EPO and transfusions" - which essentially means nothing. It didn't count for a positive test and wasn't picked up on at the time because it fluctuated within the rules. Right or wrong, USADA uses that line because they have no other scientific evidence to support themselves. Were the blood values any more irregular than other contenders at the time?
> 
> It doesn't really matter what the legal technicalities are - Lance and the friends he has are bigger than USADA. Too many powers moving against them now, Lance will get off.
> 
> They should have been smarter than to pick this fight. But I guess they needed to justify their existence for something. Most professional athletes dope, a obscure little branch of bureaucracy needs to prop themselves up with a head or two to keep themselves relevant.


Wrong 

You might want to tell Basso, Ullrich, Scarponit, Valverde, Jones, and many many others of your novel defense. 

none of them tested postive either


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> I guess you're not keeping up with the standard of proof for the various sanctions are you? AAF, >90% (I can't remember the exact percentage per Ashenden), AAA, >50%. <90 does not prove <50.


At his press conference during the Olympics Howman also mentioned that Non-Analytical positives were now 60% of sanctions. That surprised me


----------



## 95zpro (Mar 28, 2010)

I do not think most dopers actually test positive because the science is way ahead of the testing. Isn't that why in the Olympics they have an 8 year statue of limitations, so that they can test stored samples? This case is significant in that "the most tested athlete in history"(LA) has not tested positive but there is plausible evidence that he has committed doping offenses, just like some other athletes that have never tested positive but have been convicted of said offenses. The only difference is LA has considerable money and influence. 

The entities that are also trying to run interference on this case, in order to circumvent the rules of arbitration namely USA Cycling and the UCI are casting considerable doubt over their true intentions. It seems obvious that they are biased and their management practices need to be re-evaluated for their viability/credibility for the future. 

Get your popcorn ready because this week when Judge Sam rules, should be a significant step in how this case will go!


----------



## David Loving (Jun 13, 2008)

This case will start looking like one of the mud-slide videos on a "destroyed in seconds" TV program pretty soon. That's the way I'd bet.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Tomahawk said:


> "Blood values that are consistent with EPO and transfusions" - which essentially means nothing. It didn't count for a positive test and wasn't picked up on at the time because it fluctuated within the rules. Right or wrong, USADA uses that line because they have no other scientific evidence to support themselves. Were the blood values any more irregular than other contenders at the time?


They use that line because the blood values will corroborate witness testimony even though the values themselves do not constitute a positive.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wrong
> 
> You might want to tell Basso, Ullrich, Scarponit, Valverde, Jones, and many many others of your novel defense.
> 
> none of them tested postive either


Jones was not busted for doping until her perjury case. Those others do not have the financial or political ability to fight the system in their defense. Ullrich was also the only one who's career was over. Basso and the gang choose to take their lumps and get on with their careers. (Smart move in my book) LA has a lot to lose and nothing to gain by not fighting. (yes he has a financial teter totter like all of us) Wasn't there something in the article about USADA providing LA's team with all the evidence they had well in advance of any arbitration or they "would not like the response from the Judge" As much as I believe this is a absolute circus of a case, I believe LA's chances of getting off have improved slightly.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

Sicbith, please read the the entire ruling before you conclude that it has increased Lance's chances of getting off. Judge Sparks noted the merits and limitation of both sides as any judge would/should do. But the reality is that the overall merits in the ruling was about 10:1 in favor of the USADA.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Jones was not busted for doping until her perjury case. Those others do not have the financial or political ability to fight the system in their defense. Ullrich was also the only one who's career was over. Basso and the gang choose to take their lumps and get on with their careers. (Smart move in my book) LA has a lot to lose and nothing to gain by not fighting. (yes he has a financial teter totter like all of us) Wasn't there something in the article about USADA providing LA's team with all the evidence they had well in advance of any arbitration or they "would not like the response from the Judge" As much as I believe this is a absolute circus of a case, I believe LA's chances of getting off have improved slightly.


Sparks ruling was on SMJ, it has zero effect on the success of the USADA case. In fact Sparks made it clear that he is not an expert in the USADA process. 

If anything this ruling weakened Armstrong as it will be harder for the UCI to disrupt it. WADA and the IOC are watching them closely.

Armstrong may have gained some confidence that he was able to fool Sparks on a few thing but I doubt the experts will be fooled


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Come on guys... The win for LA in this ruling is that USADA must show their hand before the case goes to arbitration. He will be able to see all the evidence with enough time to go through it before he commits to arbitration. If USADA does not do this the judge reserved the right to change his ruling.


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

No, that is not correct SicBith....although Lance tried to fool you (and others) into believing otherwise, the evidence, witness list etc is disclosed only after he agrees to arbitration and that has not changed with Judge Sparks ruling.


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

No I believe that is correct. He get the info before he chooses to more forward or not.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> Come on guys... The win for LA in this ruling is that USADA must show their hand before the case goes to arbitration. He will be able to see all the evidence with enough time to go through it before he commits to arbitration. If USADA does not do this the judge reserved the right to change his ruling.


You are assuming he is going to arbitration.......

Lance will go into full martyr mode shortly.


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

anyone willing to put their bikes on the line?


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

mariomal99 said:


> anyone willing to put their bikes on the line?



Thankfully, I've never even owned a Trek (will they still be good bikes ?!?!?!) , so no thanks...Besides, this is all just entertainment, Lance had plenty of it at others' expense, now it's someone else's turn.


----------



## mariomal99 (Mar 4, 2012)

adimiro said:


> Thankfully, I've never even owned a Trek (will they still be good bikes ?!?!?!) , so no thanks...Besides, this is all just entertainment, Lance had plenty of it at others' expense, now it's someone else's turn.


Not sure if Trek makes good bikes


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

SicBith said:


> Come on guys... The win for LA in this ruling is that USADA must show their hand before the case goes to arbitration. He will be able to see all the evidence with enough time to go through it before he commits to arbitration. If USADA does not do this the judge reserved the right to change his ruling.


Even if that were the case, which it isn't, do you think LA is still working witness intimidation in addition to the legal angle and PR smokescreen?:idea:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SicBith said:


> No I believe that is correct. He get the info before he chooses to more forward or not.


Nope. He gets the info if he agrees to go to arbitration. If he does not contest then it is game over, USADA sanctions him. 

At this point it appears he will not contest. He knows the evidence is overwhelming so fighting it in the media instead of AAA seems to be the smart move to him


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Nope. He gets the info if he agrees to go to arbitration. If he does not contest then it is game over, USADA sanctions him.
> 
> At this point it appears he will not contest. He knows the evidence is overwhelming so fighting it in the media instead of AAA seems to be the smart move to him


Interesting.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Check the internet at 10:00 EST tonight and you will have your answer to what is next. Lance has issued a release to a select group of reporters


----------



## HikenBike (Apr 3, 2007)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Check the internet at 10:00 EST tonight and you will have your answer to what is next. Lance has issued a release to a select group of reporters


I'll assume that Kimmage is not one of the selected reporters.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Lance is going to give up. He is not fighting USADA. 

Should have a link shortly


----------



## zyzbot (Feb 3, 2004)

AP Exclusive: Armstrong won't fight USADA charges - - SI.com


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

A bit more in depth - I've only made it through part of it but so far he's played the martyr card, the witch hunt card and the unconstitutional card......

from Washington Post
http://tinyurl.com/c6kdgdp


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

godot said:


> A bit more in depth - I've only made it through part of it but so far he's played the martyr card, the witch hunt card and the unconstitutional card......
> 
> from Washington Post
> AP Exclusive Lance Armstrong decides not to fight USADA charges, puts 7 Tour wins at risk - The Washington Post


_“There is zero physical evidence to support (the) outlandish and *heinous* claims. The only physical evidence here is the hundreds of (doping) controls I have passed with flying colors,” Armstrong said._

I think he tweeted that he watched My Cousin Vinny last night...:lol:

Wait till this gets back to Sparks' court!:ciappa:


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

godot said:


> A bit more in depth - I've only made it through part of it but so far he's played the martyr card, the witch hunt card and the unconstitutional card......
> 
> from Washington Post
> AP Exclusive Lance Armstrong decides not to fight USADA charges, puts 7 Tour wins at risk - The Washington Post


I think that when you've been caught up in a great big lie for a long, long time, it's very difficult to acknowledge the truth, even to yourself.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

It will be very interesting to see if Lance lives up to these words

“Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities,” Armstrong said.

Or if he files another lawsuit, if he appeals to CAS and/or the UCI


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

godot said:


> It will be very interesting to see if Lance lives up to these words
> 
> “Today I turn the page. I will no longer address this issue, regardless of the circumstances. I will commit myself to the work I began before ever winning a single Tour de France title: serving people and families affected by cancer, especially those in underserved communities,” Armstrong said.
> 
> Or if he files another lawsuit, if he appeals to CAS and/or the UCI


First, let me say that I was wrong when I predicted that Armstrong would appeal Judge Sparks' decision. So, any comment or prediction that I make should be taken with a grain of salt.

I estimate that Lance's attempt to derail the USADA arbitration cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, if not more. He clearly spent several million dollars on lawyers during the course of the federal criminal investigation. Given the likelihood that Lance will come out the loser in any arbitration, appeal or litigation involving doping allegations, I think that he has taken a look at his financial resources and decided to cut his losses. I seriously doubt that he will be initiating any future action. But, he could be on the receiving end of litigation. For example, SCA Promotions possibly could initiate some kind of action. If so, Armstrong will have address the issue whether he likes it or not.

I would be interested to know whether Doc F or anyone else has any insight as to whether Armstrong has made any deals between the time of Judge Sparks's decision on Monday and his announcement tonight to resolve any potential issues such as potential litigation with SCA.


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

MarkS said:


> First, let me say that I was wrong when I predicted that Armstrong would appeal Judge Sparks' decision. So, any comment or prediction that I make should be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> I estimate that Lance's attempt to derail the USADA arbitration cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, if not more. He clearly spent several million dollars on lawyers during the course of the federal criminal investigation. Given the likelihood that Lance will come out the loser in any arbitration, appeal or litigation involving doping allegations, I think that he has taken a look at his financial resources and decided to cut his losses. I seriously doubt that he will be initiating any future action. But, he could be on the receiving end of litigation. For example, SCA Promotions possibly could initiate some kind of action. If so, Armstrong will have address the issue whether he likes it or not.
> 
> I would be interested to know whether Doc F or anyone else has any insight as to whether Armstrong has made any deals between the time of Judge Sparks's decision on Monday and his announcement tonight to resolve any potential issues such as potential litigation with SCA.


Interesting angle, that I had not considered. Thanks for your input throughout this, and a few other threads.


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

Stranger and stranger. I wonder what happens next?


----------



## godot (Feb 3, 2004)

aliensporebomb said:


> Stranger and stranger. I wonder what happens next?


JB suddenly and unexpectedly decides to not go to arbitration?


----------



## aliensporebomb (Jul 2, 2002)

Well it sure would be nice if the focus of the tour would be "whose riding and what cool bikes are there this year" versus "what syringe does RIDER X prefer to inject his alien rat venom doping product?


----------



## hoopingkld (Nov 17, 2008)

Here is the full statement that LA & his attorney posted...read and make your own judgment ...i kinda like the publicizing all info so everyone can read and understand the laws...not hear say stuffs from unreliable sources like Floyd or Hamilton...or self-called "expert" in RBR.

Lance Armstrong's Full Statement On USADA | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

MarkS said:


> First, let me say that I was wrong when I predicted that Armstrong would appeal Judge Sparks' decision. So, any comment or prediction that I make should be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> I estimate that Lance's attempt to derail the USADA arbitration cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, if not more. He clearly spent several million dollars on lawyers during the course of the federal criminal investigation. *Given the likelihood that Lance will come out the loser in any arbitration, appeal or litigation involving doping allegations, I think that he has taken a look at his financial resources and decided to cut his losses. I seriously doubt that he will be initiating any future action*. But, he could be on the receiving end of litigation. For example, SCA Promotions possibly could initiate some kind of action. If so, Armstrong will have address the issue whether he likes it or not.
> 
> I would be interested to know whether Doc F or anyone else has any insight as to whether Armstrong has made any deals between the time of Judge Sparks's decision on Monday and his announcement tonight to resolve any potential issues such as potential litigation with SCA.


So much for my predictions. 

_Armstrong said his decision did not mean he would accept USADA's sanctions. His lawyers threatened a lawsuit if USADA proceeded, arguing the agency must first resolve a dispute with the International Cycling Union over whether the case should be pursued_

USADA says it will ban Lance Armstrong, strip 7 Tour titles


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

MarkS said:


> I would be interested to know whether Doc F or anyone else has any insight as to whether Armstrong has made any deals between the time of Judge Sparks's decision on Monday and his announcement tonight to resolve any potential issues such as potential litigation with SCA.


None. Expect SCA, and others, to file shortly after he is stripped


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

hoopingkld said:


> Here is the full statement that LA & his attorney posted...read and make your own judgment ...*i kinda like the publicizing all info *so everyone can read and understand the laws...not hear say stuffs from unreliable sources like Floyd or Hamilton...or self-called "expert" in RBR.
> 
> Lance Armstrong's Full Statement On USADA | Cyclingnews.com


Not at all self serving on Armstrong's part?:idea:


----------



## cda 455 (Aug 9, 2010)

.....


----------



## PaleAleYum (Jan 12, 2006)

hoopingkld said:


> Here is the full statement that LA & his attorney posted...read and make your own judgment ...i kinda like the publicizing all info so everyone can read and understand the laws...not hear say stuffs from unreliable sources like Floyd or Hamilton...or self-called "expert" in RBR.
> 
> Lance Armstrong's Full Statement On USADA | Cyclingnews.com


I'd like to hear all the info as well. Particularly the testimony from Big George. I'd bet a dozen donuts that is what the Texan is afraid of. Everyone points to Floyd and Tyler, because they have a less than stellar record and are "bitter losers". Is George a "bitter loser"? Does he have an axe to grind? 

Outside the cycling world, Lance will always be a hero. By and large cyclists know the material he is cut from.

Besides, Lance is small potatoes. Bringing the evidence to the light of day can finally bring down the bigger criminals. Verbruggen and McQuaid


----------



## kbwh (May 28, 2010)

PaleAleYum said:


> Outside the cycling world, Lance will always be a hero.
> 
> Besides, Lance is small potatoes. Bringing the evidence to the light of day can finally bring down the bigger criminals. Verbruggen and McQuaid


1) The world is larger than the USA.
2) Agree and disagree (Armstrong is not small potatoes).


----------



## adimiro (Jun 28, 2007)

I was correct in predicting Lance would not arbitrate...so for whatever that is worth, here is my next prediction:

UCI will leave Lance hanging high and dry in order to protect their dirty laundry. Lance is now a liability to the UCI. He has little to no power to influence/bullying/intimidate any longer.


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

PaleAleYum said:


> Besides, Lance is small potatoes. Bringing the evidence to the light of day can finally bring down the bigger criminals. Verbruggen and McQuaid


Preach on brother!

WADA/USADA won a big battle but can they win the war?


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

adimiro said:


> He has little to no power to influence/bullying/intimidate any longer.


Well he knows where the bodies are buried, but that would involve him stopping the charade and being honest which he's given no indication of doing.


----------

