Armstrong charged and banned

[lukesdad]

The only point being that it is looking pretty bad for Lance and even the fans must realise it now.

No need to rub it in then is there ?

 

[Chuffy]

No need to rub it in then is there ?

Sorry, don't know if you are/were a fan, but for a non-fan, reading the blind idiocy that his army of, what, believers? fans? followers? have been spouting online for years then as far as I'm concerned it's time for barbecue sauce, ketchup, mayonnaise, chilli sauce and a side order of onion rings. Not only that, once USADA have done with him I'll be pouring on extra gravy and sticking in a sparkler.

Nothing personal but if you are/were/remain a fan then that's just tough.

 

[yello]

No surprises, Armstrong's refiled, 'only' 25 pages this time. I wonder if that'll be more to Sparks' liking this time!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/18772583

He really has to show there is reason to doubt USADA's processes and/or that they've stepped outside of their protected mandate. There is reason to suggest he might be right, several have questioned USADAs powers before now. Some interesting considerations raised here...

Lance Armstrong: Victim?

USADA says it has direct authority over thousands of citizens, with the ability to deprive them of property rights, ruin their reputations, and even conduct warrantless searches and seizures. It argues that it can use the courts to compel people who have nothing to do with sports to testify in its private proceedings under threat of perjury, to surrender evidence or other documents, and to name names. It insists that it doesn’t have to follow the usual rules of justice guaranteed by the Constitution

It does paint a very 'big brother' picture of USADA and whilst I'm sure everyone wants them to do the job of catching dopers, what means do we allow them to do that? It's a valid question.

 

[lukesdad]

Sorry, don't know if you are/were a fan, but for a non-fan, reading the blind idiocy that his army of, what, believers? fans? followers? have been spouting online for years then as far as I'm concerned it's time for barbecue sauce, ketchup, mayonnaise, chilli sauce and a side order of onion rings. Not only that, once USADA have done with him I'll be pouring on extra gravy and sticking in a sparkler.

Nothing personal but if you are/were/remain a fan then that's just tough.

I'm afraid this is going to end badly for you, whatever the outcome, millions will still idolise him, much in the same way they do Pantani and Virenque.

 

[yello]

...and many of those millions will feel betrayed, heart broken. You should read some of the personal comments left on the web reports....

And one more thing, Lance: my older brother absolutely worshipped you. He had a brain tumor and you were his absolute role model. i am glad he died of his brain tumor before discovering his hero was a fake, a liar and a scam

From http://www.businessinsider.com/lanc...-to-lose-his-doping-case-2012-7#ixzz20FK1MwRZ

 

[yello]

It seems as though Bruyneel also had been given the 5 day extension, it's Pedro Celaya (ex USPS doctor) that opted to contest..

Bruyneel, who sat out of the Tour this year, also has until Saturday to respond, the antidoping agency said, but Celaya has asked to go directly to arbitration.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/s...nce-armstrong-receive-lifetime-bans.html?_r=1

 

[lukesdad]

...and many of those millions will feel betrayed, heart broken. You should read some of the personal comments left on the web reports....



From http://www.businessinsider.com/lanc...-to-lose-his-doping-case-2012-7#ixzz20FK1MwRZ

Yes yello you ve allready posted that link. The excitement must really be getting to you

 

[yello]

I know. I was sourcing the reference for the quote.

But, yes, I am finding the soap opera captivating at the moment!

Edit: Ah, I see what you mean. I'll correct the link on the second quote.

Edit edit: nope, I was right first time. I do get stuff wrong, prone to it in fact, but on this rare occasion I think I got it!

 

[lukesdad]

Yes yello you ve allready posted that link. The excitement must really be getting to you

Maybe not

 

[lukesdad]

ah cross posted

 

[smutchin]

It does paint a very 'big brother' picture of USADA and whilst I'm sure everyone wants them to do the job of catching dopers, what means do we allow them to do that? It's a valid question.

USADA only has "direct authority" over people who have voluntarily agreed to abide by their rules. If Lance doesn't like they way they conduct their investigations, he shouldn't have signed up.

The lesson? Always read the small print.

d.

 

[Crackle]

Here's the full complaint

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99740088/Lance-Armstrong-Amended-Complaint

Long reading and I've only skimmed it. One of the bits that struck me was an allegation that USADA officials accompanied Novotsky during his evidence gathering. Now, that both surprised me and enlightened me. Clearly they gathered some real hard evidence of doping which the federal investigation was not able to use due to the burden of what they had to prove but of course USADA can.

The question is, have USADA exceeded their remit. I guess we'll have to wait to find out.

 

[yello]

If Lance doesn't like they way they conduct their investigations, he shouldn't have signed up.

In fairness, he (and every other athlete for that matter) have little choice. Further, they don't directly get to amend the terms of the contract that their sports body has with USADA, It's either sign and accept as is or don't play. It is quite disturbing to think that you could actually 'sign away' what you might consider some basic human rights you'd take for granted. Not suggesting that has happened in practice but it is something to be aware of.

It is a bigger question though. For Armstrong to show that, and get his injunction, is a big ask. If he later succeeded in open court at having USADAs jurisdiction over turned, then there are implications for all previous investigations and sanctions. I don't think Sparks will entertain that. Bodies such as USADA were created precisely to allow for arbitration outside of the court. So long as USADA is operating within it's remit as originally defined then I can't see Armstrong getting his injunction. Sparks won't simply agree with rhetoric either. Armstrong has to document his reasons for believing that USADA are beyond scope, and he has to back them up.

But the stakes are high and he's on a hiding to nothing so I can understand why he's playing a longshot.

 

[Crackle]

He really has to show there is reason to doubt USADA's processes and/or that they've stepped outside of their protected mandate. There is reason to suggest he might be right, several have questioned USADAs powers before now. Some interesting considerations raised here...

Lance Armstrong: Victim?



It does paint a very 'big brother' picture of USADA and whilst I'm sure everyone wants them to do the job of catching dopers, what means do we allow them to do that? It's a valid question.

It's an interesting article and fills in some nagging questions that have been forming, particularly around what evidence they have and where they got it and why we haven't seen it and whether we'll see it.

 

[Buddfox]

In fairness, he (and every other athlete for that matter) have little choice. Further, they don't directly get to amend the terms of the contract that their sports body has with USADA, It's either sign and accept as is or don't play. It is quite disturbing to think that you could actually 'sign away' what you might consider some basic human rights you'd take for granted. Not suggesting that has happened in practice but it is something to be aware of.

It is a bigger question though. For Armstrong to show that, and get his injunction, is a big ask. If he later succeeded in open court at having USADAs jurisdiction over turned, then there are implications for all previous investigations and sanctions. I don't think Sparks will entertain that. Bodies such as USADA were created precisely to allow for arbitration outside of the court. So long as USADA is operating within it's remit as originally defined then I can't see Armstrong getting his injunction. Sparks won't simply agree with rhetoric either. Armstrong has to document his reasons for believing that USADA are beyond scope, and he has to back them up.

But the stakes are high and he's on a hiding to nothing so I can understand why he's playing a longshot.

And he will play every shot he has available, however unlikely. Whatever else you might think of him, the guy is a fighter and he's not going to let this go. I think that's also why the other three just rolled over - they probably thought there was limited chance of winning so it wasn't worth it, and not being Americans they probably could have cared less what USADA thought - and they're 'outsiders', i.e. not competitors.

I don't think Armstrong will win in court, but it allows him to make some of his arguments in public, about how USADA's processes are weighed against the athlete. From comments around, it seems that some people are acknowledging that the odds are not balanced!