Armstrong charged and banned

[threebikesmcginty]

McQuaid is just making a complete fool of himself.

And you'd know!




Edit: Went back in time there...

 

[Red Light]

Seems to me having read the transcript through now that its far from a USADA victory. In summary the decision is that USADA has been told to correct the things in its processes and procedures that Armstrong has complained about or face coming back to Court to explain why they haven't. So Armstrong hasn't got the hearing blocked but he has got it now much more on his terms and pressure on USADA and its arbitrators to be seen to be being neutral and fair.

 

[swansonj]

There's one rather bizarre statement in the ruling - Sparks describes USADA's the timing of their decision to proceed with a case against Armstrong now as "mystifying."

It's not though, it's quite obvious why USADA are doing this now. It is because:
1. they were waiting for the federal inquiry into the US Postal team to wrap up;
2. they now have access to all the material that was gathered during that process; and,
3. Armstrong had decided to make a comeback in professional sport, in triathlon.

I am mystified that anyone could describe the timing as 'mystifying.'

OK, bear with me please, because I willingly confess that my attention has wondered a bit and some of the details of the first 56 pages are a bit hazy in my memory. But your no 2 is that USADA have access to all the material gathered in the federal investigation. I thought there was an issue that some of that material was gathered by a Grand Jury, and there were questions about the legitimacy of using Grand Jury material in a process without the safeguards for the defendent that the Grand Jury process has? Can someone put me straight?

 

[ufkacbln]

You can say whatever you like, but it's about as audible as a ghost farting in a hurricane.

Those who want to selectively read only those posts that suit their agenda are perfectly entitled to ignore the ones that don't leave them feeling warm, fuzzy and comfortable in their little world.

 

[ufkacbln]

OK, bear with me please, because I willingly confess that my attention has wondered a bit and some of the details of the first 56 pages are a bit hazy in my memory. But your no 2 is that USADA have access to all the material gathered in the federal investigation. I thought there was an issue that some of that material was gathered by a Grand Jury, and there were questions about the legitimacy of using Grand Jury material in a process without the safeguards for the defendent that the Grand Jury process has? Can someone put me straight?

Part of the issue is the fact that in a court there is a certain protection when giving evidence that does not exist in a USADA tribunal

Michelle Collins was banned for eight years for doping (2004) despite having never failed a test. Part of the evidence were emails that were "incriminating" She relied on the Fifth Amendment - the right against self incrimination.

USADA and CAS (the one and only appeal) decided that this was not a court of law and therefore the Fifth amendment did not apply.

Evidence given under this protection in a Court of Law could be challenged as it 's use breaches the "contract" between the courts and defendant

As a basic of the "United Sates Constitution" the question is whether this right can be denied. Armstrong is playing this one for all it is worth, taking it further than previously. He may yet be able to exclude some evidence on these grounds.

 

[86TDFWinner]

I want to get this in before anyone else does: clearly it is because Judge Sparks is part of the anti_Armstrong conspiracy and witchhunt!

Do I get a prize?

LOL, thats certainly how LA and his lawyers will spin it surely. "Everyone's out to get him...blah blah blah"..... Looks like this time, he's going down. If your own city's judge dismisses your case, it doesn't look good. Maybe the judge isn't a Pharmstrong fan?

 

[86TDFWinner]

Race Radio ‏@TheRaceRadio
Nice to see that Judge Sparks says Lance will have to pay USADA's legal bills and court costs

He certainly has the $$ to do so, why not.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

Red Light et al. - the whole thing might be complex, but this court case was really very simple. The basis of Armstrong's claim is that the court system should have jurisdiction. The ruling is that it's none of the court's business unless USADA mess up their own procedures. Case dismissed. All the rest, whether you or I agree with it, is merely Judge Sparks' opinion, which, whilst always interesting and sometimes even entertaining, has no bearing on who won or lost. Armstrong lost.

 

[Alun]

OK, bear with me please, because I willingly confess that my attention has wondered a bit and some of the details of the first 56 pages are a bit hazy in my memory. But your no 2 is that USADA have access to all the material gathered in the federal investigation. I thought there was an issue that some of that material was gathered by a Grand Jury, and there were questions about the legitimacy of using Grand Jury material in a process without the safeguards for the defendent that the Grand Jury process has? Can someone put me straight?

I don't know much about US law but I did find this document: http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/206584.htm#IIA1
Which contains the following text:
"Transcripts of witness testimony, statements made by Government attorneys, and any other statements made by or before the grand jury, while in session, clearly constitute "matters occurring before the grand jury" and may not be disclosed, except in conformity with one of the exceptions to Rule 6(e)"
Make of it what you will !

 

[86TDFWinner]

Oh yes, but I have a low amusement threshold when it comes to watching Lance taking custard pies.

Why? he's certainly earned any scorn he's received here and elsewhere. Had he just come out from the getgo and said "yeah, I did it, and here's why", all of this wouldn't have continued. BUT, it's his arrogance, and general douchebaggery, that puts most folks off. Time for Pharmstrong to start taking his LONG OVERDUE medicine.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Evidence given under this protection in a Court of Law could be challenged as it 's use breaches the "contract" between the courts and defendant

.

I wouldn't be surprised if Lance and his douchebag lawyers try to pull something like this, to keep the case going, or try to get a new trial...blah blah blah.

 

[Alun]

I wouldn't be surprised if Lance and his douchebag lawyers try to pull something like this, to keep the case going, or try to get a new trial...blah blah blah.

Trying to use the law to defend their client? How very dare they, disgraceful behaviour!

 

[Red Light]

Why? he's certainly earned any scorn he's received here and elsewhere. Had he just come out from the getgo and said "yeah, I did it, and here's why", all of this wouldn't have continued. BUT, it's his arrogance, and general douchebaggery, that puts most folks off. Time for Pharmstrong to start taking his LONG OVERDUE medicine.

Back to prosecuting people because you don't like them rather than because they've been proven to have done something wrong? And what better evidence than them having the affront to claim innocence. Perhaps we could apply that to the UK Courts. "The defendent has pleaded Not Guilty Your Honour"; "Not Guilty? What more proof do we need? Send them down!"

 

[Buddfox]

Red Light et al. - the whole thing might be complex, but this court case was really very simple. The basis of Armstrong's claim is that the court system should have jurisdiction. The ruling is that it's none of the court's business unless USADA mess up their own procedures. Case dismissed. All the rest, whether you or I agree with it, is merely Judge Sparks' opinion, which, whilst always interesting and sometimes even entertaining, has no bearing on who won or lost. Armstrong lost.

This reads in a somewhat contradictory way, no? Whilst the result might be black or white, and I don't think anyone's disputing that Armstrong "lost" if one is to consider just that binary, simple aspect of the event, the detail of the judgement itself is more complex, as you say, and there are several shades of grey contained within the detail. Sparks does appear to have fired a warning shot across USADA's bows about their process - of course, USADA may never have been intending to do anything other than play their hand by the book, but they're now on notice. More significantly, I think, it appears to open the door more visibly for LA's legal team to challenge the fairness of the USADA process in due course. The courts may subsequently rule against LA and in favour of USADA's future conduct, but it's on balance probably helpful for LA to have had that opportunity spelled out (even if it theoretically existed anyway). I don't really believe LA ever expected to "win" this case but he has undoubtedly gained some small victories from it. The war is far from over, but I expect team LA is more pleased than disappointed with this outcome.

 

[Red Light]

I wouldn't be surprised if Lance and his douchebag lawyers try to pull something like this, to keep the case going, or try to get a new trial...blah blah blah.

By the way, if the seven times winner of the TdeF had to use performance enhancing drugs to win, what do you think the chances are that a three times winner from a decade before had to do the same?