Armstrong charged and banned

[yello]

An interesting aspect to Armstrong's new complaint is his assertion that his contract (licence) is with UCI and not USADA. I believe he suggests (well, not "he", his lawyers) that USADA cannot initiate an investigation unless requested to by UCI. Does he believe UCI will (still) offer him some protection?

Re the federal v USADA evidence subject, there seems to be conflicting ideas. It is claimed (by both WADA and the feds) that no evidence from their investigations was shared with USADA. I believe that. That's not to say the info didn't go the other way though. I guess this specifically refers to witness testimony though (and remember doping wasn't part of the federal investigation). Perhaps USADA conducted the interviews in the presence of a federal agent? Perhaps there were two sets of interviews?

Whatever the case, I don't think there's much mileage in Armstrong offering the argument, to a federal judge, that effectively implies 'the feds lied'. He really does need to provide some solid back up for that line!

My guess? This latest complaint will be bounced pretty quickly too. I don't think Armstrong's team have enough to back their claims, and Sparks isn't going to go out and look for it for them. He'll decide on the basis of what is put before him.

 

[smutchin]

In fairness, he (and every other athlete for that matter) have little choice.

They have the choice not to break the rules. Or do something else instead of pro sport.

When rules are shown to be unreasonable, they get changed - cf the British Olympic lifetime ban policy.

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

Lance likes to paint himself as being more honourable than Landis, but he's showing himself to be even more desperate. People ask why the likes of Millar should be treated any differently to other dopers. How they respond to being caught is one of the main reasons.

d.

 

[Alun]

They have the choice not to break the rules. Or do something else instead of pro sport.

When rules are shown to be unreasonable, they get changed - cf the British Olympic lifetime ban policy.



Lance likes to paint himself as being more honourable than Landis, but he's showing himself to be even more desperate. People ask why the likes of Millar should be treated any differently to other dopers. How they respond to being caught is one of the main reasons.

d.

I think LA is wanting the chance of a fair trial, when it is alleged that he has broken the rules, he doesn't seem to be getting that. Everyone should be entitled to a fair trial, even murderers. LA was involved in Pro sport long before USADA came along. The BOA lifetime ban was overturned because WADA objected, when Chambers tried to overturn it as an individual he had no chance.

 

[smutchin]

I think LA is wanting the chance of a fair trial ... he doesn't seem to be getting that.

Judge Sam Sparks disagrees with you. Take it up with him.

 

[yello]

They have the choice not to break the rules.

Off course but that's not really my point. The point is that they have no option but to agree to the rules that control them. It's a take or leave it deal. Now, I don't want to make too much of that because, in practice, there's not a problem and the conditions are not too onerous (even though I'm sure some of the out of competition testing can be inconvenient sometimes) but there is an area for potential concern, and I acknowledge that. Particularly when the organisation is in effect contracting-out elements of your agreement.

I don't think any of that applies in Armstrong's case however. He's just grasping, looking for any argument he can find to prevent the USADA review. I'm confident Sparks will see it like that.

 

[Alun]

Judge Sam Sparks disagrees with you. Take it up with him.

I didn't know Judge Sparks had delivered his judgement on LA's revised submission, Crikey that was quick!

 

[yello]

I think LA is wanting the chance of a fair trial, when it is alleged that he has broken the rules, he doesn't seem to be getting that.

Alun, he IS getting that. 'Fair' as within the agreed procedures of USADA. Procedures that Armstrong has accepted. This is not a court of law and different rules apply here. Armstrong knows he can contest the allegations in an open or closed hearing (his choice) but he doesn't want that.

 

[smutchin]

I didn't know Judge Sparks had delivered his judgement on LA's revised submission, Crikey that was quick!

Not yet but I'm assuming he will give the revised submission the same short shrift he gave the original. Want to make a bet on it?

d.

 

[Alun]

I would sooner see Armstrong taken down in a fair trial, rather than what appears to be happening.
I'm not sure Judge Sparks has the authority to prevent it either, whatever his own views may be.
CAS is limited to applying the laws applying USADA operate under, although they can exercise "interpretation", so their hands maybe tied as well.
People may think Armstrong deserves what he gets, but the next athlete to come along may not !

 

[smutchin]

I would sooner see Armstrong taken down in a fair trial, rather than what appears to be happening.

I guess we having differing perceptions of "what appears to be happening".

d.

 

[yello]

I would sooner see Armstrong taken down in a fair trial, rather than what appears to be happening.

With all due respect, you're seem to be using Lance-speak. What makes you think he'll not get a fair hearing from USADA? Do you think the panel are all 'haterz'?

 

[smutchin]

Off course but that's not really my point. The point is that they have no option but to agree to the rules that control them. It's a take or leave it deal. Now, I don't want to make too much of that because, in practice, there's not a problem and the conditions are not too onerous (even though I'm sure some of the out of competition testing can be inconvenient sometimes) but there is an area for potential concern, and I acknowledge that. Particularly when the organisation is in effect contracting-out elements of your agreement.

If it really were a human rights issue as Lance seems to want us to believe, I'd agree that it's a cause for concern. But it isn't, it's a sporting issue.

Besides, there are sporting unions and the CAS to prevent the USADA from behaving in an unreasonable way on a whim.

I don't think any of that applies in Armstrong's case however. He's just grasping, looking for any argument he can find to prevent the USADA review. I'm confident Sparks will see it like that.

Quite.

d.

 

[yello]

If it really were a human rights issue as Lance seems to want us to believe, I'd agree that it's a cause for concern. But it isn't, it's a sporting issue.

I think the area being explored is where the sporting issue might unfairly override other rights. Years ago, when I did contract law, there was the adage that you can't contract out of the law. Basically, there is no contract if the terms themselves require illegal activity - no matter whether there's agreement. I see a similar argument at play here.

Now, I suspect you are right. I suspect there are 'checks and balances', be they from CAS, WADA or otherwise , but that doesn't mean that USADA hasn't gone beyond its remit on this, or other, occasions. I'd like to think that USADA (or whoever) cannot kick my door down at 3am and torture my family even though I'd be deemed to have agreed to that by virtue of having a licence.


But, as I said, in this case, I think it's a moot point.

 

[marinyork]

If it really were a human rights issue as Lance seems to want us to believe, I'd agree that it's a cause for concern. But it isn't, it's a sporting issue.

Armstrong's refiled papers aren't like that at all. They talk about all the issues mentioned above in a particular article and a few other obvious ones omitted. It just looks strange to us because we don't think about it in these sorts of ways. It then goes on about USADA and the UCI a lot.

The arguments are that the 'Stevens Act' doesn't apply.
Armstrong has no legal arbitration agreement with USADA and jurisdiction rests with the UCI (this is actually quite funny to read if you read the loophole that Armstrong's lawyers have spotted earlier on in their paper or if as other people say it backfired big time).
the eight year limitation period
And the federal bribery statute
They then try to appeal to the judge by comparing the board as being 'grand jury like'.
It then follows the above article ^^
Then the counts and so on.

 

[Crackle]

Armstrong's refiled papers aren't like that at all. They talk about all the issues mentioned above in a particular article and a few other obvious ones omitted. It just looks strange to us because we don't think about it in these sorts of ways. It then goes on about USADA and the UCI a lot.

The arguments are that the 'Stevens Act' doesn't apply.
Armstrong has no legal arbitration agreement with USADA and jurisdiction rests with the UCI (this is actually quite funny to read if you read the loophole that Armstrong's lawyers have spotted earlier on in their paper or if as other people say it backfired big time).
the eight year limitation period
And the federal bribery statute
They then try to appeal to the judge by comparing the board as being 'grand jury like'.
It then follows the above article ^^
Then the counts and so on.

Excellent summary, Marin.