Armstrong charged and banned

[marinyork]

*Off the top of my head, there are issues of knowing who the witnesses against you are; USADA's access to evidence assembled for criminal investigations, specifically the grand jury issue; incentives offered to witnesses; the justification for exempting from the limitations period; the appropriate burden of proof; and probably others as well. I stress I am not taking a view on any of those issues, just saying it is legitimate to debate those issues without being taken as rejecting USADA's jurisdiction or asserting LA's innocence.

The grand jury thing is probably a non-issue. There are all kinds of ways round this in cases where someone merely is asked to leave the room. Or parallel interviews and so on.

The limitations period was covered earlier in this thread. To be brief you can argue fraudulent concealment (again see earlier).

 

[Crankarm]

 

[yello]

Another summary article, this one with a bit of background on USADA and Tygart....

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ng-agency-fight-life-article-1.1119356?pgno=3

I always read these articles even though inevitably you're going over familiar ground. They all will have their own slant obviously, often even a clear bias, but you usually pick something new up....

Landis told his story to federal investigators in 2010, naming names and at one point wearing a hidden recording device for a sting operation. Soon a host of other cyclists were obliged to cooperate with the feds, and Tygart sat in on some of the interviews -- an arrangement that Armstrong’s attorneys have tried to portray as inappropriate.

That's the first time I've read that (outside of forum conjecture!) so it possibly answers one of my questions.

 

[rich p]

Another summary article, this one with a bit of background on USADA and Tygart....

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ng-agency-fight-life-article-1.1119356?pgno=3

I always read these articles even though inevitably you're going over familiar ground. They all will have their own slant obviously, often even a clear bias, but you usually pick something new up....



That's the first time I've read that (outside of forum conjecture!) so it possibly answers one of my questions.

That is interesting. Keep up the good work, Yello.

 

[Red Light]

There's actually a salient point to made here! That is (and as I touched on above), bodies like USADA were created partly to remove these disputes from courts of law.

Their creation followed a will, consensus and desire between nations to tackle the increasing problems of doping in sport worldwide. They've been specifically mandated, legislated and resourced to do just that. They can communicate and co-operate across borders in a manner that courts cannot, or have difficulty in doing. This is necessary to combat doping in the global sports field. They have powers that some see as 'unfair' or 'unconstitutional' because they are unable to issue punishments as severe as those available courts of law (loss of liberty, livelihood, etc)

In a nutshell, doping was a problem that national courts were ill-designed to tackle.

The big problem with this is these supranational sporting bodies are turning out to be riddled with politics, bribery and corruption and refusing to either acknowledge it or do anything about it. Just look at Sepp Blatter's recent defence of "bribery and corruption were not illegal at the time I was involved" defence. Ecclestone looks like he is due to be arrested on corruption and tax evasion, football is trying to ignore its serious problems while sacrificing a few in pretence, there are scandals currently running with Olympics committee members, UCI and the Obree story of changing the rules to eliminate an individual, WADA and all its problems and its labs leaking to journalists before the results have even been announced. If I had any trace of confidence in the cleanliness of the administration of these activities I might have some sympathy with you but I don't.

 

[Red Light]

Another summary article, this one with a bit of background on USADA and Tygart....

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i...ng-agency-fight-life-article-1.1119356?pgno=3

I always read these articles even though inevitably you're going over familiar ground. They all will have their own slant obviously, often even a clear bias, but you usually pick something new up....

Landis told his story to federal investigators in 2010, naming names and at one point wearing a hidden recording device for a sting operation. Soon a host of other cyclists were obliged to cooperate with the feds, and Tygart sat in on some of the interviews -- an arrangement that Armstrong’s attorneys have tried to portray as inappropriate.

That's the first time I've read that (outside of forum conjecture!) so it possibly answers one of my questions.

And yet despite all that "evidence"

The federal grand jury probe generated reams of sworn testimony but ended in February with no charges filed.

 

[Crackle]

And yet despite all that "evidence"

Are you serious, really? I have lost count of the number of times the difference between USADA's investigation and the Federal investigation have been explained. In the same way, the key arguments about how USADA might be challenged seem to have eluded you. And an organisation that might be politicised in some way, really, no kidding, well I never, I don't think I've ever seen that before, except when NASA faked the moon landings.

 

[Red Light]

Are you serious, really? I have lost count of the number of times the difference between USADA's investigation and the Federal investigation have been explained. In the same way, the key arguments about how USADA might be challenged seem to have eluded you. And an organisation that might be politicised in some way, really, no kidding, well I never, I don't think I've ever seen that before, except when NASA faked the moon landings.

So have I lost count of the number of times that defence of the process has been wheeled out. And you seem to be ignoring the fact that not only are the organisations politicized but many of them are institutionally corrupt and turning a blind eye to it. But acknowledging that doesn't suit the objectives of the lynch mob.

I was no fan of Landis but what came out in the transcripts of his hearing about the scientific incompetence of the LNDD and the way it was defended shook my faith in any semblance of fairness in the process. On the evidence Landis should have been acquitted even though he turned out to be guilty.

 

[yello]

Redlight, if it makes you feel any better then know that any USADA sanction of Armstrong would damage UCI too!

 

[rich p]

Red Light, every time you post this tripe (posts passim) , you just reveal how little of the background you know of the case. As to Yello and Crackle I'd say, stop wasting your breath. The arguments have been reiterated ad nauseam on here and elsewhere and if someone won't accept them, read them or wilfully misinterprets them it's probably time to let it go.

 

[yello]

So have I lost count of the number of times that defence of the process has been wheeled out.

There's a reason for that. It is process that will decide this. It is only pointed out because some seem to forget that.

 

[Red Light]

There's a reason for that. It is process that will decide this. It is only pointed out because some seem to forget that.

But that doesn't mean the process is sound or fair or the outcome reliable and reputable. The right answer for the wrong reason is still wrong. Many here, most notably Cuffy, seem to be intent on championing any process that will give the result they want. A process which is judged to be much more fair and impartial has weighed the evidence and found no case so they are pinning their hopes on a less fair process. And any process that refuses to provide the evidence to the accused when they are charged is not fair. If they are worried about witnesses being intimidated then monitor them and prosecute if it happens. Otherwise all we have is a Kafkaesque trial with an outcome that will be highly questionable whatever it is.

 

[Smokin Joe]

But that doesn't mean the process is sound or fair or the outcome reliable and reputable. The right answer for the wrong reason is still wrong. Many here, most notably Cuffy, seem to be intent on championing any process that will give the result they want. A process which is judged to be much more fair and impartial has weighed the evidence and found no case so they are pinning their hopes on a less fair process. And any process that refuses to provide the evidence to the accused when they are charged is not fair. If they are worried about witnesses being intimidated then monitor them and prosecute if it happens. Otherwise all we have is a Kafkaesque trial with an outcome that will be highly questionable whatever it is.

If you mean the Federal case against LA that was nothing to do with whether he doped or not, they couldn't have cared one way or the other as that is not an offence in the US. They were investigating whether he had used government funds to finance doping, nothing else.

 

[Chuffy]

Wasting valuable keyboard time here people - get out in the sun and leave Redders to his willful idiocy.

 

[yello]

A process which is judged to be much more fair and impartial has weighed the evidence and found no case so they are pinning their hopes on a less fair process.

Leaving aside the reference to the federal investigation (which I'm assuming gave the result you wanted, no?), I think the reason people remind you of process is illustrated by your above statement.

That is, you have decided that the federal investigation is "more fair" than the USADA one. The reason you have decided that is immaterial really. You're entitled to that view, as erroneous as it may or may not be. Thing is, you thinking that counts for squat.

USADA have sanctioned numerous athletes in front of a review panel already (from memory, around 60 times) and the US federal government have seen no reason to dismantle USADA nor question their authority or remit, despite protests and court cases from some of those athletes. And with all due respect, it's what the US government think that counts here.

And any process that refuses to provide the evidence to the accused when they are charged is not fair.

Again; who says it's "not fair"? You do. The US government disagrees. Tell me, who should I side with? Further, it was intentional - they deliberately set it up that way.

Seriously, you have to understand the difference, and why there is a difference, between a court of law and USADA. You're going to bang your head against a wall otherwise.