Perhaps they thought that they could combine awarding Wiggins the 2012 TdF, and redistributing Armstrong's 7 titles as spoils of war to other riders, in one big ceremony!
Armstrong charged and banned
- Thread starter yello
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
threebikesmcginty
Corn Fed Hick...
- Location
- ...on the slake
swansonj
Guru
Absolutely. Isn't it possible to agree the following things all at once:
LA is almost certainly guilty
USADA is not a law court
USADA is largely if not entirely following its own stated procedures, which LA along with everyone else under its jurisdiction has in principle accepted
LA's objections to USADA's procedures are probably more motivated by a calculating strategy to avoid being banned, or to minimise the consequences if he is, than by considerations of fairness
USADA's procedures and powers have an unfair feel about them, in that they result in sanctions similar to those a law court could impose, and they have powers that equal or go beyond those a law court would have, yet they are lacking many of the protections for the accused and the checks and balances that are the quid pro quo of the powers that a law court has.
I don't know where to start. To be frank, there is confusion shown by some as to the USADA process . All I will say is that its powers both for investigation and sanction are limited. The have nowhere near the remit that a court of law has. They cannot imprison people for instance (and that is a key distinction). You have an agreement with them and that agreement defines their terms of operation. So long as they don't step outside of that then there is no problem and a court of law will not interfere.
Think of them like your local DVD rental store. You take your DVD late and you are fined £5. You have no 'rights' to challenge that. They don't care why it's late, there' no discussion about it - pay it or don't borrow again. You agreed to that when you joined the club.
As with USADA, it's no good claiming some 'basic human rights' or a personal notion of a fair judgement. USADA is operating within it's agreed terms, it is fair. A court of law is not inclined to get involved precisely because it doesn't want to be clogged up by people filing claims against their local Blockbusters for 'unfair' penalties of £5.
USADA has sanctioned many athletes. Armstrong is not the first and he'll hopefully not be the last (!). All have gone through the process, all have received the same fair treatment. Why the problem with them now? Should they treat Armstrong differently?
Perhaps the problem some have is what a USADA sanction will result in. Perhaps you think only a court of lawyer can decide this. Because Armstrong being sanctioned will kick a chain of events that will punish far more than a lifetime ban from sports will. To me, that only merely indicates what a house of cards Armstrong's life is. All underpinned by a central premise. Pull that premise out and the cards tumble. You cannot stop the USADA action because of that.
Think of them like your local DVD rental store. You take your DVD late and you are fined £5. You have no 'rights' to challenge that. They don't care why it's late, there' no discussion about it - pay it or don't borrow again. You agreed to that when you joined the club.
As with USADA, it's no good claiming some 'basic human rights' or a personal notion of a fair judgement. USADA is operating within it's agreed terms, it is fair. A court of law is not inclined to get involved precisely because it doesn't want to be clogged up by people filing claims against their local Blockbusters for 'unfair' penalties of £5.
USADA has sanctioned many athletes. Armstrong is not the first and he'll hopefully not be the last (!). All have gone through the process, all have received the same fair treatment. Why the problem with them now? Should they treat Armstrong differently?
Perhaps the problem some have is what a USADA sanction will result in. Perhaps you think only a court of lawyer can decide this. Because Armstrong being sanctioned will kick a chain of events that will punish far more than a lifetime ban from sports will. To me, that only merely indicates what a house of cards Armstrong's life is. All underpinned by a central premise. Pull that premise out and the cards tumble. You cannot stop the USADA action because of that.
Have they? And what do you mean by "consolidated"? We've already seen 3 sanctions, and 3 different courses of action being taken by the remaining defendants so I want to be clear what you mean.
On a general point, I'm not quite sure whether you're referencing fact or simply conjecturing when you say things like...
I presume it's conjecture (which I have no problem with, in fact I enjoy it!) but I want to be sure.
On that particular point, I've not read anything that gives reasons for what happened... but I have read a lot of opinion! I wouldn't actually agree with your interpretation (if that's what it is) but can see that it's an entirely possible explanation too. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that Sparks made phone calls before Herman withdrew the TRO request.
swansonj
Guru
Yello
Granted, which I think pretty well everyone agrees, that USADA operates under a set of procedures that athletes agree to in advance and therefore have little grievance over, granted that the procedures seem quite likely to produce the right outcome in this case, granted that claims about infringing people's rights have rather limited basis in a voluntary, contractual system:
Nonetheless, do you feel entirely comfortable with the USADA system? Do you genuinely feel the system, quite apart from how it is operating and will play out in the LA case, is a sufficiently good and fair system?
Here's my answer re what UCI can about the sanctions. WADA obviously read of my confusion and issued a press release!
WADA statement on Mutual Recognition
WADA statement on Mutual Recognition
Have they? And what do you mean by "consolidated"? We've already seen 3 sanctions, and 3 different courses of action being taken by the remaining defendants so I want to be clear what you mean.
On a general point, I'm not quite sure whether you're referencing fact or simply conjecturing when you say things like...
I presume it's conjecture (which I have no problem with, in fact I enjoy it!) but I want to be sure.
On that particular point, I've not read anything that gives reasons for what happened... but I have read a lot of opinion! I wouldn't actually agree with your interpretation (if that's what it is) but can see that it's an entirely possible explanation too. It wouldn't surprise me in the least that Sparks made phone calls before Herman withdrew the TRO request.
Yello, the "consolidated" part comes from your link
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/sports/ci_21051898/armstrong-attorney-lance-gets-30-day-extension
Johan Bruyneel, the manager on Armstrong's winning teams, who also has been charged, is not covered by the 30-day extension, even though USADA had consolidated their cases, USADA spokeswoman Annie Skinner said.
I don't understand exactly what she means either, but I'm taking the usual meaning of "consolidated"
Yes, what I said is my opinion which I think is as valid as anyone else's at this stage, that's why I started the link with "I think" but as I put sentences on new lines to make it easier to read, it might look as if it is different.
The part about the Schnapps, I just made up
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/sports/ci_21051898/armstrong-attorney-lance-gets-30-day-extensionIn short, yes.
Clearly, organisations do go rogue and beyond scope sometimes (wittingly or unwittingly), and there's always need for 'checks and balances' - both of these points I've commented on upstream.
In this case though, I feel USADA has played by it's book. I'd even go further, I'd say they've been extra diligent in doing it right knowing full well it's a high profile case. They sanction athletes all the time without there ever being mention of the process, a brief paragraph in the sports column being all most of us would ever know about it. They know this would be headlines, they knew they'd be in the spotlight so I feel confident they've acted within their remit.
Armstrong is questioning that remit in the courts, as he is entitled to, and Judge Sparks will make consider that complaint, but I honestly feel it will amount to nothing. I feel Armstrong will have to accept USADAs jurisdiction in this matter and know that there processes are fair according to a legal definition.
Let me turn the question around; what gives you reason to doubt USADA?
To be fair, I think it's probably more for Pad McQuaid's benefit, he didn't seem to have a full grasp of the matter when he made his "no comment" the other day.
Absolutely! No probs with that at all!
I think 'consolidated' means, in that context, all on one charge sheet. The original charge letter. It seems to me, from there, each defendant can go their own - as indeed they have. I agree with you - I think Bruyneel could well still be on the 5 day extension, not 30. Perhaps USADA ought clarify that.
You're also right with where you put "I think". I could see your initial statement was an opinion. I just wasn't sure about what followed! I try not to assume when I'm trying to understand something....forgive me if it comes across as pedantic or nit-picky
USADA's procedures have been challenged before and thrown out of the supreme court. The only difference I see here is how they potentially got access to the evidence they have and whether it makes them a State Actor.
USADA's ability to financially ruin an athlete is down to the actions of the athlete in the first place and as Swansonj alluded earlier, Armstong's guilt, vis-a-vis the evidence gathered, is an entirely different matter to whether USADA has the correct procedures.
USADA's ability to financially ruin an athlete is down to the actions of the athlete in the first place and as Swansonj alluded earlier, Armstong's guilt, vis-a-vis the evidence gathered, is an entirely different matter to whether USADA has the correct procedures.
I think you're right. It seems there could be precedent for suggesting it does.What effect would have on proceedings though? Would the whole action be halted or would USADA have to obtain witness testimony (for example) again? I wonder if them acting like a state agent only forces them to proceed as one from here on in?
It's been quite categorically stated that they didn't get evidence from the feds so that really only leaves the possibility that it was obtained jointly; USADA interview with a federal officer in the room perhaps?
A lot of people are assuming that the evidence was collected in a way that will make a court take USADA to the cleaners but I just don't see it. They have these arguments all the time with grand juries and has been argued about throughout US history (this is why I know a small amount about it all). Some of the noises coming from Mr Tygart down the years also might make people think that it's got a case there but a court will simply ignore all that. It's about as irrelevant as the noises Armstrong makes.
Nevertheless it is interesting to talk about because there are several unlikely outcomes possible if armstrong got any kind of ruling in his favour.
- Status
