oldbobcat

You do realize, oilman, that the USADA is not a court.

By the way, if you choose to simply not defend yourself in a court of law, there are consequences. It's called contempt charges. There's no "I'm tired of this and I'm not going to fight it anymore." And Lance never fought a doping charge anyway--he just faced a lot of insinuating questions from sports journalists.

oilman_15106

You truly take this thing personal. Do you work for the USADA? Sorry oldbobcat this was meant for asgelle.

You "know" LA cheated and I do not think he got a fair day in court. When is USADA going to release all this evidence they claim to have? Probably never as they have the result they set out to achieve.

When you get a parking ticket in the mail from some place you never have been then you will know how I feel about USADA. LA's foundation helped my daughter in law with her cancer fight. I saw him run triathlons in Texas when he was a teen and he kicked butt. You probably think he doped to with those tri races also. He is an exceptional athlete and has done more good than USADA can ever dream of doing.

USADA should give Monday night's NFL game to the Packers.

asgelle

Well in that case ...

No, Armstrong do not get "a fair day in court." In fact he didn't get any day in court. The reason for that, of course, is he voluntarily chose not to contest the charges and accept the sanctions. Are you saying courts (or arbitration panels) should go ahead with trials (or hearings) even after defendants plead guilty? What exactly would be the point in that?

CACycling

Lance did not plead guilty, he simply said he did not want to play their game as he felt the rules were skewed toward the USADA and their "guilty until proven innocent" mode of operation.

asgelle

Put whatever spin on it you like, the fact is we can't judge the fairness of the hearing because it never took place and that was entirely Armstrong's doing. A cynic might claim the reason he declined was just so he could continue to claim the process was unfair.

Garfield Cat

Sounds like the IRS too.

oldbobcat

I think you said it well, but I'd substitute skeptic for cynic.

RobertL

Since the USADA has seen fit to break their own rules and go back more than eight years against Lance, I'm looking forward to them going after Arnold Schwarzenegger. I believe that he was pretty much the poster boy for steroid use, it's time to strip him of his titles as well. Who else can we drag into the star chamber of this runaway department of the federal government?

oilman_15106

I am waiting for your response on this : When is USADA going to release all this evidence they claim to have? Probably never as they have the result they set out to achieve.

volosong

A story on cyclingnews.com and velonews.com today said that delivery of the report is being delayed, (again), until mid-October.

Mobile 155

I think the problem is that in reality the ICU has jurisdiction and according to the rules the USADA can't force them to do anything untill they and the WADA and Armstrong have a copy of the report. At that point they would have to prove to the WADA that the ICU covered up a bad test against Lance. The WADA rules had a 8 year statute of limitations so no test older than 2004 would be relivant. If the ICU disagrees then they can request an arbitration with the ruling body, a Swiss court and the USADA would have to present their case to the Swiss who would make the final ruling not the USADA. Both the WADA and the ICU were responsible for the origional tests and the USADA would have to prove they were in error. Whatever the case will be it may not be over and the USADA may not be able to force the ICU, WADA and the Swiss to bow down to their American will.

asgelle

This is so twisted it's hard to know how to unravel it all. UCI does have final jurisdiction, but as signatory to the WADA code they are not free to act however they please. Under the WADA code, UCI is obligated to enforce sanctions imposed by any National Authority or a designated anti-doping agency once the National Authority provides the sanction and the reasoning behind it. In the U.S., the National Authority (USAC) has identified USADA as the agency to enforce the WADA code on their behalf. So if everything goes as designed, USADA provides a document explaining the reasons for imposing sanctions and UCI enforces them. As long as everything is done according to standing agreements, WADA has no role in this.

If the UCI does not impose the sanctions levied by USADA, WADA, USADA, or USAC can appeal to CAS to force them. If WADA believes USADA did not follow their published protocols, they can appeal to CAS to vacate the decision. They can't appeal the conclusions as long as the protocols were followed. UCI can appeal to CAS to set aside the judgment if they feel USADA did not follow their protocols or if they feel the sanctions are not justified by the supporting document. Several experts have voiced the opinion that since Armstrong waived a hearing, the strength of the evidence is irrelevant. All USADA has to show is that the scale of the sanctions are in line with the magnitude of the violations spelled out in the charging letter.

This is a case on a non-analytic positive so the age of the tests and who performed them are not relevant. The statute of limitations does not apply because this case involves an ongoing conspiracy.

Swiss courts have no jurisdiction over administration of the WADA code. The only way for this to get to a Swiss court is if one of the parties can show after all appeals to CAS have been exhausted, there has been a violation of Swiss or EU law (a very high standard); CAS has been recognized as the final word on sporting issues.

Since Armstrong waived a hearing, I don’t believe the evidence can be challenged. It doesn’t matter anyway since this is a non-analytic positive case and doesn’t rely on a failed test.

Whatever the case, as signatory to the WADA code, UCI has agreed to impose sanctions imposed by USADA (and every other participating country’s ADA or National Authority) as long as they follow their own procedures. USADA is not forcing anyone to bow down to its will. The only question is will UCI live up to their signed agreements. At least in public, UCI has said they will.

Mobile 155

But the possible USADA over reach continues. They had no problem trying to force Lance into a hearing after the Feds dropped all charges. And remember the UCI also examined Lance and judged the tests valid all thise years. And the WADA has a 8 year statute Statute of limitations. But mow months after their evidence they can't send the file as required to the UCI, LAnce and the WADA? They are now saying they gan't get it together till about October 15th? What were they working on in the first place a crystal ball? the UCI does have the right of appeal according to them, From a press release from the UCI, https://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012...-armstrong-uci "The UCI could choose to appeal to the court of arbitration for sport in Switzerland against the Usada ruling, or to gain jurisdiction over the case." For some reason the USADA keeps putting off sending the file. Could it be that the UCI and WADA doesn't have to live up to any agreements the USADA offered dopers they allowed to ride in this years tour? https://seattletimes.com/html/othersp...05_digs23.html maybe they might lose some donated funding if we are lucky.

DnvrFox

Moderators - is it time to close this thread I started? It seems to me the same things are being repeated again and again?? Not that I take the time to read every word!!

Rowan

Oh, no, don't close. This is an ongoing saga, and it's worth discussing the issues among mature people. And we'd only have to start up another thread on it.

Dnvr, you don't have to participate if you don't want to. I think it's advice you've given in the past on other threads.

---------------------

The latest news story I have read says USADA has broken its promise of delivering its reasonings on the case until to the middle of October (15th October is their self-imposed deadline now). No excuse for the delay was given. The promise to deliver before the end of September came from USADA's CEO.

If the case was so watertight, the reasoning should have been clear cut and available immediately. Surely.

DnvrFox

OK, I will simply unsubscribe. Carry on!!

asgelle

Surely not. USADA was preparing to go to an arbitration hearing. The evidence was formatted to be entered into evidence and used in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Now that information has to be converted into a document to UCI supporting an uncontested charge. Preparing legal documents can take a lot of time regardless of the strength or weakness of a case. USADA surely recognizes the possibility that Armstrong and UCI will challenge that document on procedural/formatting grounds if not on the substance, and are taking great care that everything is done properly.

asgelle

I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated, but the jurisdiction for DOJ and USADA are completely separate. DOJ was investigating whether any U.S. criminal laws were broken; USADA investigated whether there were any violation of the WADA anti-doping code. These are two unrelated areas.

And just a few corrections to the two quoted sentences. DOJ did not drop any charges - no charges were ever files, so none could be dropped. USADA did not try to force Armstrong into a hearing. He always had the right to a hearing and USADA was following through with their published procedures. USADA's investigation of the five Postal team members began prior to the DOJ investigation. It was suspended when DOJ got involved and then resumed when the Grand Jury was dismissed. It is wrong to imply that the USADA investigation followed on after the DOJ.

Mobile 155

That however that does not negate the statement by the head of the UCI saying they could appeal to the Swiss to take back jurisdiction puting the USADA back in the position they belong in, advisory rather than inforcement. The UCI has made it clear they will make the dicission only after they have reviewed the evidence. And that evidence will have to incude "all of the riders" that USADA has allowed to participate in the grand tours. The best part is we will soon see who answers to who and that the USADA can request but not enforce their findings. The other part will be Lance's lawyers will get the evidence as well. Something they were not allowed to get prior to any hearing they wanted Lance to attend. I for one look forward to seeing how many top riders were in the tour this year after being given a pass by the USADA. And I am sure the rest of the public wants to know about a 501c that turns a blind eye to one while going after another.

Rowan

I am sorry, but when the CEO of a major authority makes a promise, it should be kept. There was no reason given publicly for the delay. If there needs to be a going-over of the material to ensure its integrity, then that should be said. But the longer it goes, the more suspicious will grow that there is something amiss with it all.

There's way too much of this "we'll deliver on a certain date" only to have the delivery pushed back a fortnight, a month or longer. I wonder how long this will be prolonged for.

GeorgeBMac

Ahhh come on! Give those poor smucks at USADA a break! I takes a lot of time to transform a witch hunt into a valid legal document.

dwellman

I don't know I think this thread has gotten better since it started. I'd say 20% of the Lance detractors are the "just want to watch the world burn" types but they've, thankfully been quiet for a long while.

Myself, I'm nor pro Lance per se, I'm just anti USADA. Seems to me it's more about their legitimacy than the "purity" of sport.

Mobile 155

I believe I am with you here. We all watched as the UCI took Lance to task and tested him time after time and even investigated much of the very same evidence that the DOJ looked at. The USADA is subserviant to both the UCI/ICU and the WADA and yet they "fought" for jurisdiction from the very people they report to. Plus if Lance had failed one drug test much like any of the others the UCI had suspended do any of us believe the if 1000 other riders were willing to testify that Lance never took drugs they would have tossed out the test results and said, "oh you must be right our tests are faulty."? If indeed they have the evidence will they also be charging the UCI for the cover up their witnesses have been so vocal about? Or is this a case of he slipped through all of your hands so we will convict him for you and take care of it? Sounds like an old joke from some movie. You arrest a guy and say," Don't worry you will get a trial before we hang you." I simply don't trust the motives of the USADA. I question their intent when they allowed supposed witnesses to race in the TDF when they knew those same witnesses could effect the race after it was discovered they had failed drug tests "before" becoming a witness. Team BMC and Hincapie come to mind.

asgelle

I stopped reading here. USADA is not subservient to UCI (I have no idea what ICU means) or WADA. That's already been explained repeatedly.

Mobile 155

When an agency makes a decission to punish a person and they have the authority they don't have to submit a report to another agancy before that punishment is carried out. As demonstrated a great number of times when the Union Cycliste Internationale, in the US called the International Cycling Union, has suspended riders for not passing a drug test without telling the USADA of their intentions before hand. So who is required to send a report before action is taken, the greater or the lesser agancy?

Remember the UCI/ICU has questioned the stalling it sees from the USADA and said it will not take "any" action till they have reviewed it no matter what the USADA said they are doing. So who is subserviant? SubServiant: Subordinate in capacity or function.

And if you read the Statement by the head of the UCI/ICU they said they still have the option of getting the Swiss to return jurisdiction to them, and international authority rather than a US authority. Who do you feel should have the authority for a international race in France and tested by an International group? This is an international problem not a national one isn't it?