Lance Vs. USADA...or not

[95LCMachine]

As Im sure all (6 viewing as I type) of you have heard about the USADA stripping Lance Armstrong of all of his Tour de France wins (7) and possibly the bronze he won in 2000.

Personaly I'm glad that the actions were taken, and cyclings poster boy has been knocked down a peg or two.

What it means for the rest of his career I don't know, but it is high time that he was called on his drug his use.

In my humble opinion, professional cycling has seen great prosperity in the Lance era, but it came at a price. The "s*** show" that is Lance Armstrong, has demoted a once vibrant and upstanding sport to another corrupt American institution.

I know that doping in pro cycling is not only limited to Americans, but once again we are on the international front page as cheaters and liars.

We need to restore some semblance of integrity to the sport of cycling and the USA. Kicking Lance's ass out of every race from here on out is a good start. No more leadville 100 no nuthin!

what say you MUD?

 

[MANUCHAO]

I posted this this on the c-c forum....
my $0.02

alledge dopper (hasn't been proven guilty)
cancer survivor
incredible athlete
bad husband
bad boy friend
a****** to some
hero to many
who has helped n continues to do so for those in need n now karma SEEMS (not sure if it is) to be knockin at his front door.....

yet, he seems to be taking it with a grain of salt.....

I personally think he is a great dude, but I'll be foolish to think he's perfect..... Then again, who in this earth is....

((((( LIVESTRONG LANCE ))))) I say....!!!!!

 

[Jetboy]

If there's no scientific evidence, it's total bull****.

There clearly is not enough evidence provided to the media to "prove" that he doped. There are people who say he did it. People who say he didn't. To bring a case so far removed from the time it happened needs to be supported by real scientific evidence.

It flies in the face of core values of America to "convict" someone and ban them for life from a sport without evidence other than 10 or 15 year old claims by teammates who've been discredited themselves. In America we - well we used to - hold certain values. Like the opportunity to be judged in a fair manner by impartial decision makers. I'm deeply troubled that our government is condoning this type of activity AND that we are borrowing money from China to pay for it.

It seems likely that Lance did use PEDs of some sort, but with issues this old that have no meaning other than an administrative desk jockey's jealousy of Lance Armstrong's success without any scientific support from the hundreds of samples that have been taken is a joke.

 

[semlin]

If there's no scientific evidence, it's total bull****.

There clearly is not enough evidence provided to the media to "prove" that he doped. There are people who say he did it. People who say he didn't. To bring a case so far removed from the time it happened needs to be supported by real scientific evidence.

It flies in the face of core values of America to "convict" someone and ban them for life from a sport without evidence other than 10 or 15 year old claims by teammates who've been discredited themselves. In America we - well we used to - hold certain values. Like the opportunity to be judged in a fair manner by impartial decision makers. I'm deeply troubled that our government is condoning this type of activity AND that we are borrowing money from China to pay for it.

It seems likely that Lance did use PEDs of some sort, but with issues this old that have no meaning other than an administrative desk jockey's jealousy of Lance Armstrong's success without any scientific support from the hundreds of samples that have been taken is a joke.

what the hell are you talking about? who is borrowing from china to convict lance?

"in america" multiple eyewitnesses are good enough for murder trials so they are good enough for this trivial bull****.

shaking head.

 

[CDFarmer]

what the hell are you talking about? who is borrowing from china to convict lance?

"in america" multiple eyewitnesses are good enough for murder trials so they are good enough for this trivial bull****.

shaking head.

I think the China remark was a joke! USADA spent $9 million in tax dollars to pursue this Witch hunt, and our country is in debt, with the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt being China, which owns more than $1.2 trillion in bills, notes and bonds, according to the US Treasury - so I think he's saying - why the hell are we spending millions on a personal vendetta when we owe Trillions to China, & continue to borrow more.

And convicted murders usually don't make very good (character) eyewitnesses in murder trials, especially if the convicted murderer stands to be acquitted based on his testimony.
In the case against Lance, the only known eyewitness was a "banned" disgraced cyclist, the other eyewitness(s) were never named (contrary to newspaper reports)
And "in America" we have the right to face our accuser(s), i.e. Confrontation Clause......
And "in America" we are- innocent until proving guilty, i.e. Presumption of innocence.....
And "in America" we have something called- due process, see Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments......
This whole thing stunk from day one.

The thing I find most interesting, USADA bans Lance for life- Lance never failed a drug test.
Alexander Vinokourov, positive PED test (2007), banned for 1 year, comes back to win Gold in London (2012)
Lance never tests positive- banned for life
Alberto Contador, positive PED test (2010), banned for 1 year, currently 2nd (as of this post) at the Vuelta a España
Lance never tests positive- banned for life
I could go on, but I think I made my point. I should note the above suspensions were imposed by the UCI not USADA
C

 

[semlin]

the witnesses weren't named because the case aginst lance never proceeded because he refused to defend himself and the usada took a default conviction. they would have had to testify and be cross-examined if lance had defended. it was his choice not to confront them.

lance got a letter saying they were bringing a case and there would be a full hearing if he wished to defend himself. that's as far as the case went. instead of defending himself he started a court case to try and get a judge to stop the usada prosecution. he lost, in part because the judge got reassurances from the usada that lance would get full due process at the hearing. he then had a chance to go to the full hearing where he would be able to cross examine all the witnesses and all the other usual protections. at that point he decided not to ask for a hearing so he was convicted automatically. instead he called a press conference to badmouth the usada. under usada rules if you don't defend yourself you get convicted. he knew this.

he did exactly what a cheater would do in that situation. he threw a lot of dust in the air to cloud the facts and then avoided a hearing where the evidence against him would come out clearly. one of the biggest dustclouds is this nonsense that he can't be convicted because he never failed a drug test. if there are eyewitnesses who saw him cheating then that's as good or better than a failed drug test.

and i doubt it's over. now he is going to try and get uci to ignore the usada results and force another jurisdictional case.

 

[Mr. Toad]

But Lance beat cancer! And he never tested positive!

 

[CDFarmer]

I think most people had already convicted Lance prior to his withdrawal from the USADA investigation.
But just to be clear, there was never to be a "Trial".
Lance was given the opportunity to testify, on his behalf, in regards to allegations (of doping) brought forth by USADA.
USADA's allegations were supported by eyewitness accounts. (possibly up to 10)
If Lance chose to testify, his testimony, witness testimony, and USADA's evidence would all have been presented to a "Board of Arbitration"


Board of Arbitration- A panel of impartial persons appointed to resolve a dispute in an extrajudicial process. There are generally three arbitrators, but there may be up to five. Parties in arbitration agree to allow the decision of the board of arbitration to be binding and to forego the right to an appeal.

Lance clearly stated on August 23 2012, that if he was given the opportunity to a fair trial, he would continue the fight......

No evidence was presented- (to LA's counsel)
No witnesses were named- (confrontation clause)
LA's legal team would have never been given the opportunity to review the evidence, or "cross examine" the witness, etc
The Board of Arbitration would have simply reviewed the testimonies & what ever evidence- then decided Lance's fate

 

[semlin]

from the court decision of the federal judge who knows a lot more than you do about due process and who actually reviewed the entire arbitration process and rules that armstrong would be going through to determine if it was fair.

“On balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,” Sparks wrote. “This court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it. Further, Armstrong has ample appellate avenues open to him.”

“Indeed, but for two facts, the court might be inclined to find USADA’s charging letter was a violation of due process and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder,” he said. “First, it would likely be of no practical effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later, only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA’s counsel represented to the court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA’s claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration.”

 

[CDFarmer]

from the court decision of the federal judge who knows a lot more than you do about due process and who actually reviewed the entire arbitration process and rules that armstrong would be going through to determine if it was fair.

“On balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,” Sparks wrote. “This court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it. Further, Armstrong has ample appellate avenues open to him.”

“Indeed, but for two facts, the court might be inclined to find USADA’s charging letter was a violation of due process and to enjoin USADA from proceeding thereunder,” he said. “First, it would likely be of no practical effect: USADA could easily issue a more detailed charging letter, at which point Armstrong would presumably once again file suit, and the parties would be back in this exact position some time later, only poorer for their legal fees. Second, and more important, USADA’s counsel represented to the court that Armstrong will, in fact, receive detailed disclosures regarding USADA’s claims against him at a time reasonably before arbitration.”

I would hope a US District Judge would know more about "due process" than me

Especially one with more than 20 years on the bench!

>>>interesting video of Phil Liggett's opinion on USADA (from 8/29) http://youtu.be/VJz4kwm9mXc

 

[Mr. Toad]

Semlin is right, but this is a matter of religion for most people now. Facts, reality, and truth are all in the eye of the beholders. And Lance prefers it to remain unresolved because findings of a lawful factfinding body are far less preferable than the beliefs his loyal followers.


........

A few years ago an insurance company sought to withhold Lance's bonus for winning several Tours de France. Insurance co. said Lance cheated, so it didn't have to pay. The issue was litigated (that's where the Andreu depo happened, the Vaughters texts surfaced, the 6 positives from 1999, Dr. Ashenden, etc.), and the panel ruled against the insurance company, which had to pay the bonus plus Lance's attorney fees and interest. Good for Lance. But then he turns around and touts his win as proof that he didn't dope. Thing is, the panel ruled in his favor because the bonus contract did not have a doping exclusion, not because he didn't dope!