Armstrong charged and banned

[yello]

Even the most basic assumptions such as the nature of the contract between athletes and the USADA are questioned by senior figures in the US legal system - then surely an open mind would and should at least listen?.

You are right, there are questions being asked. I've posted on that subject myself already. I'm not sure I'd agree there are "senior figures in the US legal system" asking them but that's not to dismiss there being questions. The Straubel report you posted a link to yesterday asked some of them.

The point in my posting on this thread is primarily to document the USADA process as it continues for those that are interested in it. I'm no legal expert, all I do is read and summarise - sometimes I venture an opinion on what might happen. With regard to the questions being asked of USADA's processes, I acknowledge them, see the basis for some of them but I stay grounded. There are always questions of any process, always people to question any authority. I have no real interest in those questions in this context. My focus has been on what is happening and what might happen, and not on what people think should be happening.

In all honesty, I feel Armstrong's best chance of avoiding sanction is for there to have been a procedural error somewhere along the line, an error the review board pick up on. Trying to argue 'unconstitutional', 'no jurisdiction', or whatever is a waste of time I feel. The USADA remit is too well defined and protected by the federal government for those arguments to be entertained. There's simply no framework for them. The time for those arguments is after the USADA process. Unfortunately for Armstrong, I think he needs to exhaust the agreed procedures (USADA then CAS) before he can take his case to a federal court.

 

[yello]

Reading my post again, I can see how you misconstrued it and I can only offer my unreserved apologies.

No worries mate, I hoped that was the case but as there were only two posts between raindog's and yours (mine being one), it kind of felt like I was being referred to. I can breath normally now and don't need to storm off in a huff!

 

[rich p]

No worries mate, I hoped that was the case but as there were only two posts between raindog's and yours (mine being one), it kind of felt like I was being referred to. I can breath normally now and don't need to storm off in a huff!

Phew

 

[rich p]

Phew

p.s. Am I on your ignore list now? I couldn't PM you earlier.

 

[PaulB]

Methinks you protest far too much.



I know that the gist of this thread is that questioning the USADA, its actions or their problems is unwelcome and difficult, but tough as they exist.

If you wish to sit in a little fantasy world of denial then feel free to ignore reality and what is actually happening, then feel free.

Even the most basic assumptions such as the nature of the contract between athletes and the USADA are questioned by senior figures in the US legal system - then surely an open mind would and should at least listen?

However that is not the case - in reality there is a wish to close the discussion and limit it to sycophantism.

I suppose that is your right.

Us "nobbers" should have known better than to try and post anything that did not fit the prescribed agenda, or the ethos that the USADA cannot be challenged or it's actions questioned.

.

It must be horrible to know that should you suffer from a sudden bolt of realisation, you will realise how awful it is to be you. You posted the above at half-past midnight! You stayed up that late, wrapped yourself in that cloak of self-righteousness and spewed forth that pile of pathetic wanketry. I feel sorry for you and the baggage of self-importance it is your burden to be inflicted with.

 

[yello]

p.s. Am I on your ignore list now?

Who said that?

 

[yello]

People, seriously, can we not get abusive. It's not necessary. If you've exhausted yourself discussing rationally then simply don't respond. Take a break.

In terms of on-going stuff, it's going to be quiet for another 2 weeks-ish (unless Judge Sparks grants USADAs claim to dismiss) and I'd like this thread to still be here (and not locked!) for then

 

[gb155]

People, seriously, can we not get abusive. It's not necessary. If you've exhausted yourself discussing rationally then simply don't respond. Take a break.<br /> <br />In terms of on-going stuff, it's going to be quiet for another 2 weeks-ish (unless Judge Sparks grants USADAs claim to dismiss) and I'd like this thread to still be here (and not locked!) for then

For when Sir lance is cleared?

 

[yello]

That could happen, yes. I wouldn't go holding my breath though

 

[Crackle]

Use the ignore button. I have and some of the posts aren't making sense if you reply to them, so stop replying!

I thank you.

 

[gb155]

That could happen, yes. I wouldn't go holding my breath though

Don't worry, I'm not

 

[Red Light]

You are right, there are questions being asked. I've posted on that subject myself already. I'm not sure I'd agree there are "senior figures in the US legal system" asking them but that's not to dismiss there being questions. The Straubel report you posted a link to yesterday asked some of them.

The point in my posting on this thread is primarily to document the USADA process as it continues for those that are interested in it. I'm no legal expert, all I do is read and summarise - sometimes I venture an opinion on what might happen. With regard to the questions being asked of USADA's processes, I acknowledge them, see the basis for some of them but I stay grounded. There are always questions of any process, always people to question any authority. I have no real interest in those questions in this context. My focus has been on what is happening and what might happen, and not on what people think should be happening.

In all honesty, I feel Armstrong's best chance of avoiding sanction is for there to have been a procedural error somewhere along the line, an error the review board pick up on. Trying to argue 'unconstitutional', 'no jurisdiction', or whatever is a waste of time I feel. The USADA remit is too well defined and protected by the federal government for those arguments to be entertained. There's simply no framework for them. The time for those arguments is after the USADA process. Unfortunately for Armstrong, I think he needs to exhaust the agreed procedures (USADA then CAS) before he can take his case to a federal court.

You might like to have a look at all controversy around the Minnesota Vikings where there has been a long running legal tussle over whether Federal legislation has primacy over NFL rules. Despite being caught doping, the individuals concerned continued playing for some years because of a battle over whether the NFL could over-rule Federal employment law by banning them. The NFL is much much older than USADA so the legal primacy is not as clear cut as some might think. We might find out more in the coming years for USADA as the Armstrong/Bruyneel cases unfold.

 

[marinyork]

I think it's a waste of time discussing this at the moment given yesterday and the road race and time trial coming up. Of the three points from the lessons learned from jenkins piece only point 2 is anything like a new point. Point 3 we've actually already discussed in this thread. The reason why it is of interest is that if Armstrong did manage it, it would result in big changes. It is extremely unlikely a court would define it as state action as this sort of argument has been used throughout US history and what state action is has been defined a few times very carefully. If a lawyer got a dollar for every time the argument would use they would be very rich. It's still worth Armstrong's lawyers having a go, because it could magic a (partial) victory out of nowhere - but it's very unlikely.

Point 1 and the tidying up is true, but is somewhat misleading in the sense that Cunobelin means it.

I think we should all come back in a couple of weeks. It seems very odd the morning after so much success in the tour that we have trolls going on about this and starting tom simpson threads. Yesterday and today were one of the few times in my lifetime that cycling has actually been talked about by the general public out there.

 

[albion]

The interesting thing aout Armstrong is that prior to cancer at the age of 25 he was incredibly successful with cancer being the obvious reason for only ok olympic results that year.

The guy won a minimum of $1 million in 1993 and whether guilty or not they guy was always an incredible athlete.
What irritates me is that to support the allegations the story always always runs on how average he was.

6th place at the Olympics when no doubt cancer ridden can't be bad.

 

[rich p]

The interesting thing aout Armstrong is that prior to cancer at the age of 25 he was incredibly successful with cancer being the obvious reason for only ok olympic results that year.

The guy won a minimum of $1 million in 1993 and whether guilty or not they guy was always an incredible athlete.
What irritates me is that to support the allegations the story always always runs on how average he was.

6th place at the Olympics when no doubt cancer ridden can't be bad.

There's a teensy bit more evidence than being better post-cancer.