Originally Posted by
CaDan
This is not good.
Your post? Correct.
Originally Posted by
CaDan
One of the arbitrators is Clark Griffith.
Incorrect. He sat on the USADA review board that decided if the case should go forward.
Originally Posted by
CaDan
Mr. Griffith recently pled guilty (an Alford plea where he admits the state has sufficient evidence to convict him) to a charge of public nudity while trying to "pick up" one of his students.
Showing someone your wee wee doesn't mean you can't render a logical decision.
Originally Posted by
CaDan
Now, this just makes him look bad. However, Mr Griffith was also quoted as expressing at least some opinion of the case, "He's really scrambling .... I can't wait to hear what the arbitration panel thinks of the evidence."
He reviewed the evidence and rendered judgement. Judges comment on cases after they have rendered judgement all the time. And the comment was after Lance tweated about Griffiths misdemeanor plea.
Originally Posted by
CaDan
Mr. Griffith, if not biased, is at least an embarrassing choice by the USADA as an arbitrator.
He's not an arbitrator. He's a member of the panel that reviews evidence and decides if it warrants moving forward. Sort of the doping Grand Jury.
Originally Posted by
CaDan
The issue is, when the USADA is putting together what may be its most important case, it chose an arbitrator who is an embarrassment and who cannot maintain a judicial demeanor when he is supposed to be fairly arbitrating a case.
See my above comment. He's done hearing the matter. And at the moment it's not even going to arbitration. The parties can either accept the charges or fight them. USADA is waiting for their response.