Armstrong charged and banned

[Red Light]

AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge had tough questions for U.S. anti-doping officials in their pursuit of Lance Armstrong, grilling them at length in a hearing Friday.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks wondered whether USADA has given the seven-time Tour de France winner a legitimate chance to defend himself against charges that he used performance-enhancing drugs throughout his career.

But Sparks also asked Armstrong's attorneys to show why USADA should not have jurisdiction in the case, as they have argued.

Armstrong has sued USADA to block its attempt to prove he cheated. Sparks made no ruling and gave lawyers another week to file more legal briefs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120810/cyc-armstrong-doping/

 

[86TDFWinner]

Wanna bet the judge "suddenly" gets amnesia(wink wink a nice payoff from Lance) & rules in favor of.the cheater?

 

[yello]

So decision delayed whilst both sides provide Sparks with more info...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-delays-ruling-in-armstrong-and-usada-case

Sparks’ concerns and subsequently delayed ruling on jurisdiction were primarily based around the specifics provided by USADA, or rather apparent lack of which did not provide Armstrong with enough information to mount an edequate defence.

USADAs charge sheet is light on evidence (no names, no events, just "conclusions" as Sparks said). We know this was deliberately so to avoid witness intimidation. So what interests me here is that USADAs new input to the court will be a matter of public record. Will we get to see names of witnesses, nature of their testimony and details of any additional evidence?

Ominously, and as also referenced by RedLight above, Sparks asked Team Armstrong why they were in court....

The judge also questioned Armstrong’s lawyer Tim Herman, regarding the actual reasoning behind the federal court being involved at all.
“Where do I have jurisdiction in this case when you can litigate this in the arbitration process?" Sparks said.

Looks to me that Sparks wasn't convinced by Armstrong's claims re jurisdiction and wants him to provide a more convincing argument

 

[yello]

Another summary of the court hearing...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...be86dc-e2be-11e1-89f7-76e23a982d06_story.html

Sparks gave no indication how he would rule, but he was clearly troubled by the vagueness of USADA’s charging letter to Armstrong and the agency’s decision to withhold key information, including the names of witnesses and what they told investigators at this stage.
“No case filed in this court or any court in the United States would go to trial,” under similar circumstances, Sparks said.

Again, we know why the charge sheet was vague. Also remember USADA is operating according to agreed processes, it's not a federal court and doesn't have the same rules.

I found this an interesting, if somewhat aside, comment...

There’s something under the current when UCI says ‘This is our case, USADA step back,’ and USADA says ‘Not on your life,’” Sparks said.

Who knows just how Sparks meant that, be it a reference to conspiracy or merely to the frosty relations, but 'hammer nail head'?

 

[Red Light]

Again, we know why the charge sheet was vague. Also remember USADA is operating according to agreed processes, it's not a federal court and doesn't have the same rules.

It doesn't but it still comes under the law and must operate within it. There are many areas where the rules which are made up by organisations are nullified by over-riding legislation. If this were in Europe he would probably have recourse to the Human Rights legislation as well as it cannot be a fair trial without knowing who is accusing him and what the evidence is against him. A similar area under UK law is that you cannot deprive someone of a right to earn a living and any contract clauses that attempt to do that are over-ruled usually by the Courts.

The comment on UCI looks like he is asking why the two bodies are fighting over it and whether there is an agenda behind them wanting to run this case and exclude UCI. He does note that despite the statements in that dispute that their rules appear to conflict as to who is responsible.

 

[rich p]

There's nothing new in what Sparks has said. We all knew what the arguments were going to be. It seems to me that this is dragging on unnecessarily. Either Sparks has to rule that he doesn't have the right to grant the injunction (in which case USADA don't have to provide any more detailed information) or he does and they do. He surely could have decided which yesterday.

 

[yello]

He surely could have decided which yesterday.

Maybe he has, just not officially. He perhaps needs time to ensure that his official ruling is water tight, to draw up the documentation etc??

I am a little baffled as to the questions he's seemingly asked of Armstrong and USADA though.

This case is, I thought, about subject matter jurisdiction and yet he's asked that very question of Armstrong again. If that's the matter the court case was intended to address and Armstrong's lawyers haven't addressed it convincingly then you'd have thought that was game over. Is he hinting that there is convincing argument that Armstrong could provide?

As to wanting more detail from USADA, again I thought this was about jurisdiction not evidence.

For what it's worth, my gut feel from what I've read is that Sparks has decided that USADA's process is the correct one for this matter and that the courts don't have (nor want) jurisdiction. Whilst the delay doesn't come as a total surprise to me, I must admit to not seeing what else is needed. But then, I can only go on what gets reported and I'm obviously no legal eagle.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Sparks is grandstanding. As we know from his previous melodramatic throwing out of Armstrong's initial case, he is an inveterate publicity-seeker, whatever his other qualities as a judge. As to what he will rule, who knows?

In the meantime, CyclingNews is describing the UCI as 'outnumbered, outgunned and... out-thought', and McQuaid is going on about how WADA has been involved in a fifteen year conspiracy against cycling. This makes me hope that Sparks does not rule in favour of Armstrong here for no other reason than if the current leadership of the UCI can feel itself vindicated in any way, we will have to put up with these idiots running the sport we love for longer still.

 

[rich p]

...yeah but it's not as if Sparks only looked at the case yesterday, is it. Surely he's had weeks to read the submissions and make his decision.
Anyway, whatever; if he grants the injunction, what will happen to the evidence? Is it shelved, hidden away, destroyed? Could USADA pass it on to WADA, CAS or even, God forbid, the UCI?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

...yeah but it's not as if Sparks only looked at the case yesterday, is it. Surely he's had weeks to read the submissions and make his decision.
Anyway, whatever; if he grants the injunction, what will happen to the evidence? Is it shelved, hidden away, destroyed? Could USADA pass it on to WADA, CAS or even, God forbid, the UCI?

Drawing maximum attention to yourself is all about timing! But if Sparks rules against USADA - which I don't think he will - they will just take it to a higher court (and win). The whole thing will just drag on. And as things drag on, the media tend to lose interest, which I think may well be Armstrong's main concern here.

 

[yello]

Sparks is grandstanding.

True, yes, that's another interpretation

 

[yello]

.Surely he's had weeks to read the submissions and make his decision.

There was some related stuff filed this last week, so there was a bit of 'last minute' reading.

Re what happens should Sparks decide in favour of Armstrong, I'm guessing it depends who he sees as having the relevant jurisdiction. IF he says it's a federal issue then I reckon proceedings will stall and log jam. I'd guess the preferred route from USADA's perspective would be WADA. If it goes to UCI..... I really wouldn't want to guess what would happen... and that's me trying to be fair to McQuaid!

I was thinking about McQuaid's letter to WADA and whilst it's indicative as to McQuaid's state of mind, it really is an irrelevance... albeit an interesting one. It wouldn't surprise me if WADA didn't bother with a reply, not a point-by-point one anyway.

 

[Red Light]

There's nothing new in what Sparks has said. We all knew what the arguments were going to be. It seems to me that this is dragging on unnecessarily. Either Sparks has to rule that he doesn't have the right to grant the injunction (in which case USADA don't have to provide any more detailed information) or he does and they do. He surely could have decided which yesterday.

He has the right to issue an injunction but he needs to decide whether the situation warrants it. I suspect he will set out a set of conditions - full disclosure of the evidence for example - that USADA must meet to make it a fair hearing. That seemed to be the direction of his questioning of USADA yesterday while that of LA's lawyers was more about the reasons for issuing an injunction so that he can reasonably have been said to include them in any conditions he sets.

But there was a clear indication as things stand with secret evidence he does not think justice is available to LA.

 

[Red Light]

Sparks has accused USADA of being on a fishing expedition:

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, Texas, said yesterday the agency’s notice to Armstrong about doping violations lacks specific allegations that would allow Armstrong to mount a “meaningful response.” He said five people accused of doping violations along with Armstrong aren’t American or U.S. competitors and questioned lawyers for the agency, whose allegations go back 12 years, why it waited so long.

“I’m not a fisher person, but I do know the smell of bad fish,” Sparks said. “Were you so busy, year after year?”

It also appears they have no drug test evidence against him:

Bill Bock, an attorney for the USADA, told Sparks the agency “alleged a lot of doping in a very organized fashion over a long period of time.” The USADA doesn’t have any positive drug tests for Armstrong or the other individuals targeted for doping violations, he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...o-block-anti-doping-agency-s-arbitration.html

 

[rich p]

He has the right to issue an injunction but he needs to decide whether the situation warrants it. I suspect he will set out a set of conditions - full disclosure of the evidence for example - that USADA must meet to make it a fair hearing. That seemed to be the direction of his questioning of USADA yesterday while that of LA's lawyers was more about the reasons for issuing an injunction so that he can reasonably have been said to include them in any conditions he sets.

But there was a clear indication as things stand with secret evidence he does not think justice is available to LA.

Well he won't be in a position to issue an injunction if he decides that he doesn't have jurisdiction. Which is the whole point of this obfuscation isn't it?