Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    LBKA punkncat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    OTP South
    Posts
    1,988
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Lance and the USADA...explain something for me?

    I have been doing a bit of reading about this ongoing situation like many of you have. One glaring issue keeps standing out to me that I do not understand.
    From my reading, it is my impression that the USADA was created as an oversight committee to US athletes who wish to perform in the Olympics, and to make sure they are "drug compliant". I am confused as to how they have any jurisdiction in this Lance debacle when he hasn't attempted to be on the Olympic team?
    Where do they have the right to open a case against him outside their oversight?
    One Foot Less

  2. #2
    Senior Member Commodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Posts
    4,144
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    cuz cycling is an olympic sport. I don't know why it's organized in this way, but for decades now the anti-doping efforts in most (all?) countries are organized this way, under a sort of WADA/CAS umbrella.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lancaster County, PA
    My Bikes
    '39 Hobbs, '58 Marastoni, '73 Italian custom, '75 Wizard, '76 Wilier, '78 Tom Kellogg, '79 Colnago Super, '79 Sachs, '81 Masi Prestige, '82 Cuevas, '83 Picchio Special, '84 Murray-Serotta, '85 Trek 170, '89 Bianchi, '90 Bill Holland, '94 Grandis
    Posts
    5,063
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    USA Cycling relies on USADA as its anti-doping arm. Like other national sports organizing bodies, they have a contract with USADA to do so. USA Cycling is the national licensing body for the sport in the US - pro and amateur. As such, it has relationships with both the USOC and the UCI.
    Last edited by Picchio Special; 07-10-12 at 10:54 AM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is a perfect case to go to SCOTUS.

    The USADA lacks jurisdiction in many areas and is violating Armstrongs due process right.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Jed19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,742
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfer34 View Post
    This is a perfect case to go to SCOTUS.

    The USADA lacks jurisdiction in many areas and is violating Armstrongs due process right.
    You are wrong. As pointed out in post #3, USA cycling is the absolute licensing body and regulator for the sport in the USA, and it has a contract with USADA for its anti-doping measures. If LA or anybody else took out a cycling license in the USA, then they are bound by the rules and regulations of USA cycling, and of course, by extension USADA. The SCOTUS won't touch this with a ten-foot pole. A strictly private affair.
    Regards,

    Jed

  6. #6
    Senior Member Commodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Posts
    4,144
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfer34 View Post
    This is a perfect case to go to SCOTUS.

    The USADA lacks jurisdiction in many areas and is violating Armstrongs due process right.
    pure idiocy

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NH
    My Bikes
    Trek 1400, Trek 6500
    Posts
    117
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Commodus View Post
    pure idiocy
    Never slowed us down before!

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jed19 View Post
    You are wrong. As pointed out in post #3, USA cycling is the absolute licensing body and regulator for the sport in the USA, and it has a contract with USADA for its anti-doping measures. If LA or anybody else took out a cycling license in the USA, then they are bound by the rules and regulations of USA cycling, and of course, by extension USADA. The SCOTUS won't touch this with a ten-foot pole. A strictly private affair.

    Its not strictly private. The USADA gets government funding.

    Its the same thing with the Boy Scouts. You get government funding, or lease property from the government, then you have to abide by rules that wouldnt apply to strictly private groups.

    We'll see how it plays out.

  9. #9
    Lanterne Rouge
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    My Bikes
    2004 Giant Cypress
    Posts
    47
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's a pretty weird public/private thing.

    The USOC is federally chartered like a few other organizations, like the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, and the Federal Reserve.

    The USOC created the USADA as a separate legal entity. I think, but don't know for sure, that the USOC owns the USADA. The USADA does anti-doping enforcement for the USOC and on the side, does anti-doping enforcement for USA Cycling. USADA is directly funded by the US Govt. I don't know if it has other sources of funding (like maybe getting paid by USA Cycling to do it's anti-doping enforcement).

    Armstrong alleges USADA is controlled enough by the US Govt. that it qualifies as a "state actor"--that is, the government--so when he is prosecuted by it, he has legal rights. I haven't researched the law in this area in a few years, and I don't know enough of the facts to make a call on whether Armstrong's allegations have merit.

  10. #10
    Senior Member telebianchi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    My Bikes
    2014 Trek Domane 5.2, 2003 Fuji Cross, 2010 Giant Trance, 2006 K2 Mod 4.0, 2010 Schwinn Madison
    Posts
    1,222
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Decent article in Outside Magazine Online regarding Armstrong's case and the setup of USADA. I think the writer leans in Armstrong's favor (although he says early on that he felt Armstrong doped many years ago) but does present possible legal arguments from both USADA and Armstrong's side of things.

    http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor...ng-Victim.html
    May your tires or beer never be flat.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    236
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CaDan View Post
    It's a pretty weird public/private thing.

    The USOC is federally chartered like a few other organizations, like the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts, and the Federal Reserve.

    The USOC created the USADA as a separate legal entity. I think, but don't know for sure, that the USOC owns the USADA. The USADA does anti-doping enforcement for the USOC and on the side, does anti-doping enforcement for USA Cycling. USADA is directly funded by the US Govt. I don't know if it has other sources of funding (like maybe getting paid by USA Cycling to do it's anti-doping enforcement).

    Armstrong alleges USADA is controlled enough by the US Govt. that it qualifies as a "state actor"--that is, the government--so when he is prosecuted by it, he has legal rights. I haven't researched the law in this area in a few years, and I don't know enough of the facts to make a call on whether Armstrong's allegations have merit.
    Bingo. That what would make this a great case for SCOTUS. There is a bit of grey area here.

  12. #12
    Senior Member mymojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texxas
    My Bikes
    '10 Specialized Allez, '09 Cervelo S1, '93 Trek T200 (tandem), Rocky Mountain Metro 30
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This thread has helped me understand quite a bit better. So thanks to those who piped up!

    A related question if you don't mind. From what I've heard their dirty test comes from 2010 or so. How does that affect titles that he won five years prior to that?
    "It's the 41. If you don't have cool stuff, you suck. If you have cool stuff, you still suck" - Velo Gator

    "The 41 reminds me more of the big brawl scene near the end of Blazing Saddles." - mprelaw

  13. #13
    LBKA punkncat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    OTP South
    Posts
    1,988
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by telebianchi View Post
    Decent article in Outside Magazine Online regarding Armstrong's case and the setup of USADA. I think the writer leans in Armstrong's favor (although he says early on that he felt Armstrong doped many years ago) but does present possible legal arguments from both USADA and Armstrong's side of things.

    http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor...ng-Victim.html
    This article makes a lot of good points and arguments that are best discussed elsewhere.
    One Foot Less

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,628
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by punkncat View Post
    I have been doing a bit of reading about this ongoing situation like many of you have. One glaring issue keeps standing out to me that I do not understand.
    From my reading, it is my impression that the USADA was created as an oversight committee to US athletes who wish to perform in the Olympics, and to make sure they are "drug compliant". I am confused as to how they have any jurisdiction in this Lance debacle when he hasn't attempted to be on the Olympic team?
    Where do they have the right to open a case against him outside their oversight?
    The UCI has an agreement with many countries similar agencies to oversee the anti doping issues in their respective countries. While every guilty athlete has claimed due process violation I don't think the courts in the USA will buy into that argument. Because the USADA does not have the power to take any of Lance's personal freedoms away. They cannot put him in jail or take away his money. They can only tell him he can't compete in certain sports that they oversee. And that his past winnings are invalid. So the standard for due process is not the same as in a criminal court proceeding.

    I for one have no sympathy for Armstrong. He already has enough money. He has been an out spoken anti doping supporter and now that they have a lot of evidence against him he thinks he should get special treatment and not do his pennance.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S.E. Iowa
    My Bikes
    all diamond frames
    Posts
    1,149
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Commodus View Post
    cuz cycling is an olympic sport. I don't know why it's organized in this way, but for decades now the anti-doping efforts in most (all?) countries are organized this way, under a sort of WADA/CAS umbrella.
    Baseball is an olympic sport. Why aren't they going after Bonds, Clemens, Mcguire, et al?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •