Armstrong charged and banned

[Flying_Monkey]

I can't help thinking that the USADA's case seems to be weaker than it appeared a few weeks ago, when many regarded it as game, set and match.

How would you know?

 

[smutchin]

Lance told him.

 

[lukesdad]

We don't know who the witnesses testimony comes from but I feel safe in saying that doubt can be cast as to the 'reliability' of a few of them. However, getting the review panel (or court of law, if it goes that way) to dismiss all of them as 'unreliable' is going to be difficult. I personally don't see it happening.

This is true, could come down to, which one do you distrust the least.

We need some hard evidence, unchallengble test results and a traceable paper trail.

 

[Noodley]

We need some hard evidence, unchallengble test results and a traceable paper trail.

Not me, I'm happy to go with whatever there is.

 

[lukesdad]

Not me, I'm happy to go with whatever there is.

Well you have allways been easily pleased < according to Mrs noods anyways >

 

[lukesdad]

To answer a question with a question is deflection, so I'll take it from your response that you expect all 10+ witnesses to be telling big fibs. I'm only trying to establish what you're suggesting here.

Sorry missed this post ^ it was in answer to your 'goes to charachter quote' if thats a deflection well.....

 

[Noodley]

I am starting to think that Armstrong's career is more like Minder every day...Bruyneel is Arthur Daly, Armstrong is Terry McCann, Pat McQuaid is Dave at the Winchester. Dick Pound is DS "Cheeky Charlie" Chisolm, and Armstrong's domestiques are "Mournful Morris", Second-hand Sid", Freddy the Fly", "Hacksaw Harris" and "Fat Charlie". When Terry leaves, Arthur brings in Ray Daley aka Alberto Contador, but Terry soon returns and things start to go badly wrong... Rula Lenska plays Kristin Armstrong, Sheryl Crow and Anna Hansen.

 

[marinyork]

 

[yello]

it was in answer to your 'goes to charachter quote'

Now you've got me baffled and I've still no idea what you meant... but I'll let it go.

I can't help thinking that the USADA's case seems to be weaker than it appeared a few weeks ago

I doubt the evidence has changed so I have to assume that your assessment of the situation has. So what is it that makes you think their case is weaker?

 

[yello]

I thought it might be useful to give a 'state of play' update (as best as I can understand it!)

Item 1: We know that USADA have given Armstrong a 30 extension. So he has until August 10th to respond. He can either elect to contest (or not). If he decides to contest, he can have an open or closed hearing. He will be entitled to see the full evidence and cross examine witnesses at the hearing. If he does not respond, or chooses not to contest, then USADA will make their judgement.

Item 2: There is a court hearing scheduled (with Judge Sparks) at 2pm on August 10th if the parties (USADA and Armstrong) do not come to an agreement. That basically means if Armstrong refuses to acknowledge USADA's jurisdiction. If there is agreement (Armstrong decides to contest OR accepts USADA's judgement) then this hearing will not go ahead. USADA can file to dismiss but I somehow doubt they will.

My feeling is that Armstrong will not respond to USADA. They will sanction him, the court hearing will take place and Armstrong's case will be dismissed.

 

[smutchin]

If Bruyneel is Arthur Daley, does that make Dr Ferrari "Er Indoors"? (Never actually seen on Tour.)

 

[Chuffy]

I thought it might be useful to give a 'state of play' update (as best as I can understand it!)

Item 1: We know that USADA have given Armstrong a 30 extension. So he has until August 10th to respond. He can either elect to contest (or not). If he decides to contest, he can have an open or closed hearing. He will be entitled to see the full evidence and cross examine witnesses at the hearing. If he does not respond, or chooses not to contest, then USADA will make their judgement.

Item 2: There is a court hearing scheduled (with Judge Sparks) at 2pm on August 10th if the parties (USADA and Armstrong) do not come to an agreement. That basically means if Armstrong refuses to acknowledge USADA's jurisdiction. If there is agreement (Armstrong decides to contest OR accepts USADA's judgement) then this hearing will not go ahead. USADA can file to dismiss but I somehow doubt they will.

My feeling is that Armstrong will not respond to USADA. They will sanction him, the court hearing will take place and Armstrong's case will be dismissed.

Do you mean his (assumed) argument in Item 2 that USADA don't have jurisdiction?

 

[Alun]

Bruyneel is the "stalking horse", his case will be heard first, the witnesses will reveal themselves, and Armstrong will have them dealt with !
A man answering his description is already being sought regarding "Tackgate", and now he's spiked Frank's lemonade. He was less trouble when he was in the Tour!

 

[yello]

Do you mean his (assumed) argument in Item 2 that USADA don't have jurisdiction?

Yes, sorry, my phrasing was ambiguous. I think Sparks will dismiss Armstrong's complaint and the USADA sanction will stand (to be appealed to CAS perhaps).

 

[Chuffy]

Yes, sorry, my phrasing was ambiguous. I think Sparks will dismiss Armstrong's complaint and the USADA sanction will stand (to be appealed to CAS perhaps).

For a bit I wondered if you actually meant the whole case...
Have we already discussed the 'take the rap then spend years bitching about witchhunts and haters?' option?