Senators want to investigate USADA

[BumbleBeeDave]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/09/news/california-senators-call-for-congressional-review-of-usada_237560

Because it's all obviously a conspiracy.

Note the picture--with Jan in the background with food sticking out of his mouth. :rolleyes:

BBD

[Brian Smith]

Other than the probability of new strategies causing USADA funding to be diverted from the Olympic Laboratory at UCLA, which really isn't too much anyway, does anyone have insight regarding why this is strongly an issue for California State Senators? Do they expect Congress to spawn a solution to world sport sometime soon?

[djg21]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/09/news/california-senators-call-for-congressional-review-of-usada_237560

Because it's all obviously a conspiracy.

Note the picture--with Jan in the background with food sticking out of his mouth. :rolleyes:

BBD

Leave it to Senssebrenner and Rubio. What tools.

[MattTuck]

Other than the probability of new strategies causing funding to be diverted from the Olympic Laboratory at UCLA, which really isn't too much anyway, does anyone have insight regarding why this is strongly an issue for California State Senators? Do they expect Congress to spawn a solution to world sport sometime soon?

Because California is facing massive and substantive problems, and politicians don't like to run on actually solving problems. They'd rather distract and obfuscate.

[echelon_john]

Amgen? Weisel? Armstrong's law firm based in SF?

[BumbleBeeDave]

Amgen? Weisel? Armstrong's law firm based in SF?

I think we have a winner. Give that man a prize.

BBD

[Aaron O]

While I agree that the senate does, or should have, better things to worry about than drug testing and athletics, the USADA is a quasi-government agency and I do think questioning its complete lack of due process and methodology is valid. I find this to be more legitimate than when they were grand standing with inquiries into baseball players because this is a legitimate question into organization process.

[Charles M]

More Lance love from all...

[Tony T]

Senators want to investigate USADA
Because it's all obviously a conspiracy.
BBD

Wow, Armtrong is more powerful that we thought :rolleyes:

Twenty-three state senators sent a letter (http://sd16.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd16.senate.ca.gov/files/USADA%20Letter%20to%20Boxer-Feinstein.pdf), addressed from senator Michael J. Rubio’s office, on Tuesday to U.S. senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. In the letter, the state senators, “respectfully request that (Feinstein and Boxer) call upon (that office) and the appropriate oversight committees of the United States Congress to develop appropriate constitutional protections and conduct a comprehensive review of USADA’s operations and finances, with special attention to USADA’s unilateral changes in rules for dealing with athletes who have never failed a drug test.”

[echelon_john]

Sarcasm noted. But yes, he does still have influence. More importantly, he still has dirt on people and organizations who have influence and money, who have as much interest in protecting themselves as they do in protecting Lance.

Wow, Armtrong is more powerful that we thought :rolleyes:

[Fixed]

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't mess around with Slim
Cheers

[Tony T]

Sarcasm noted. But yes, he does still have influence. More importantly, he still has dirt on people and organizations who have influence and money, who have as much interest in protecting themselves as they do in protecting Lance.

Many have said that anyone who defends LA are "on his payroll"
Will they now say that he has 23 Senators in his pocket?

[echelon_john]

No--not at all. But there are other interested parties who have influence.

You don't need 23 Senators in your pocket. You just need a couple who are owed favors quid pro quo by other Senators for something with little political downside to get support.

Many have said that anyone who defends LA are "on his payroll"
Will they now say that he has 23 Senators in his pocket?

[Tony T]

You don't need 23 Senators in your pocket. You just need a couple who are owed favors quid pro quo by other Senators for something with little political downside to get support.

Well, that didn't take long. Obviously a conspiracy

[jpw]

Many have said that anyone who defends LA are "on his payroll"
Will they now say that he has 23 Senators in his pocket?

No, but Nike is not a neutral observer. Neither is Trek. The list goes on.

[Tony T]

No, but Nike is not a neutral observer. Neither is Trek. The list goes on.

So, you're saying that the Senators are in Nike and Trek's pocket?
(the conspiracy deepens...)

[Joachim]

Wow, Armtrong is more powerful that we thought :rolleyes:

[B]athletes who have never failed a drug test.”

And clearly the senator's have no clue how easy it is to beat those tests. A rider can, with the current available tests, take HGH, blood transfusions, EPO, AICAR and testosterone and not test positive. It's all about dosages, half-lives and timing. If I had a "sport consulting" business like Ferrari or Checchini, I would be laughing all the way at the testers. The fact that intravenous EPO (more specifically darbepoetin, aka ARANESP, can you say Johan Museeuw?) is almost undetectable in urine compared to subcutaneous EPO has been published years ago in the Journal of Perinatology. All Ferrari had to do is keep up to date with the latest medical literature.

[christian]

I do think questioning its complete lack of due process and methodology is valid. Given that the Senate approved the UNESCO anti-doping treaty as recently as 2008, you'd think they'd know what was in it. Or at least, they could ask their staffers.

There is ample due process in the WADA/USADA protocol.

[Tony T]

And clearly the senator's have no clue how easy it is to beat those tests.

If this were to go to a congressional review (it won't), Tygart would have the opportunity to explain it to them.

[Joachim]

If this were to go to a congressional review (it won't), Tygart would have the opportunity to explain it to them.

Assuming they have the intelligence to grasp simple scientific concepts. However, judging from recent threads on this board, those concepts are too complicated to understand (or people just do not want to understand, ie cognitive dissonance).

[merlincustom1]

While I agree that the senate does, or should have, better things to worry about than drug testing and athletics, the USADA is a quasi-government agency and I do think questioning its complete lack of due process and methodology is valid. I find this to be more legitimate than when they were grand standing with inquiries into baseball players because this is a legitimate question into organization process.

Texas Federal Judge Sparks thought the due process was fine, and so threw out LA's challenge. What support do you have for your claim that there is a "complete lack of due process" under USADA arbitration?

[ultraman6970]

My personal opinion, since the darn senate is being involved in this thing, probably they will press the USADA people to quit or some crap will happen that LA will get everything back.

[Tony T]

Texas Federal Judge Sparks thought the due process was fine, and so threw out LA's challenge. What support do you have for your claim that there is a "total lack of due process" under USADA arbitration?

This question should be asked to the 23 Senators that signed the letter that make this claim.

[echelon_john]

And I thought I was the resident pessimist! ; )

My personal opinion, since the darn senate is being involved in this thing, probably they will press the USADA people to quit or some crap will happen that LA will get everything back.

[jpw]

So, you're saying that the Senators are in Nike and Trek's pocket?
(the conspiracy deepens...)

There's no conspiracy. Politicians openly advocate the economic needs of corporations.

[William]

My personal opinion, since the darn senate is being involved in this thing, probably they will press the USADA people to quit or some crap will happen that LA will get everything back.

Hey, the federal case went away. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the USADA will go away as well.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6lV5hzNR1fU/SZbT418FckI/AAAAAAAADFI/toJj9_TKXVQ/s400/make%2Bit%2Bgo%2Baway.jpeg




William

[Aaron O]

Texas Federal Judge Sparks thought the due process was fine, and so threw out LA's challenge. What support do you have for your claim that there is a "complete lack of due process" under USADA arbitration?

The fact that 23 senators are questioning it. When you have a highly visible condemnation of an important athlete without a failed drug test, and so far most of what was used to attack him was testimony of other riders, many with axes to grind, and that athlete's public claim is he isn't appealing due to the organization's policies...yes, there might be questions about due process. One federal judge's unwillingness to listen to Lance's case isn't the same as confirmation of the organization's due process either.

[Tony T]

There's no conspiracy. Politicians openly advocate the economic needs of corporations.

True, yes, I agree, but that has nothing to do with their claims. Did you read the letter?

[Tony T]

The fact that 23 senators are questioning it.

The fix is in! (How does Armstong do it! ;))

[Aaron O]

Given that the Senate approved the UNESCO anti-doping treaty as recently as 2008, you'd think they'd know what was in it. Or at least, they could ask their staffers.

There is ample due process in the WADA/USADA protocol.

I don't assume anything ;)

Whether or not there is ample due process is, to me, a question for judges, juries and legislative bodies.

[Elefantino]

No, but Nike is not a neutral observer. Neither is Trek. The list goes on.

And there are Nike stores and Trek concept stores in California.

This conspiracy could go all the way to the top.

[echelon_john]

It's too bad threads like this don't actually generate electricity or something.

[Mark McM]

I don't assume anything ;)

Whether or not there is ample due process is, to me, a question for judges, juries and legislative bodies.

Which they have already decided.

The Ted Stevens Sports act outlines that national sports bodies and their members are to agree to binding arbitration to resolve disputes.

Judge Sam Sparks has found that the arbitration process used by USADA satisfied due process.

I think this all boils down to this:

Those who like the outcome of a well established process: "Justice has prevailed."

Those who do not like the outcome of a well established process: "Due process rights were violated."

[Grant McLean]

Wow, Armtrong is more powerful that we thought :rolleyes:


...with special attention to USADA’s unilateral changes in rules for dealing with athletes who have never failed a drug test.”


All one has to do is look at the sanctions handed out by the USADA over
the past 10 years, here's the list: http://www.usada.org/sanctions/

and note that there are many examples of banned athletes that don't include a positive test:

3 Whereabouts Failures
Non-Analytical Positive
Refusal to Submit to Sample Collection
Adverse CIR
Trafficking and Administering Prohibitied Substances
Tampering

It's utter nonsense to suggest that a positive test is the only standard
for sanction.

-g

[PQJ]

I don't assume anything ;)

Whether or not there is ample due process is, to me, a question for judges, juries and legislative bodies.

A federal judge has ruled there were and would not have been any due process violations (cut and pasted directly from Judge Sparks' ruling):

Armstrong's Due Process Challenges

Armstrong further alleges USADA' s arbitration procedures do not comport with due process. Specifically, he complains of the following alleged procedural deficiencies: (1) he was not provided an adequate charging document; (2) he has no guarantee of a hearing by the appellate arbitral panel; (3) he has no right to cross-examine or confront witnesses against him; (4) he has no right to an impartial arbitration panel; (5) he has no right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence; (6) he has no right to disclosure of cooperation agreements or inducements provided by USADA; (7) he has no right to obtain investigative witness statements; (8) he has no right to obtain full disclosure of laboratory analyses or an impartial assessment of their accuracy; and (9) he has no right to judicial review of the arbitrators' decision by a United States court.

Application:

Armstrong's due process claims fail as a matter of law, and must be dismissed. An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property 'be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." ClevelandBd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (quoting Mu/lane v. Cent. Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950)). The Supreme Court has "described 'the root requirement' of the Due Process Clause as being 'that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest." Id. (quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371,
379 (1971)). The Supreme Court has identified three factors which must be considered in determining whether particular government procedures comply with "the specific dictates of due process"....The Court begins by recognizing the substantial private interest involved: it is no exaggeration to say the future of Armstrong's career, and maybe also its past, will likely be determined by the result of USADA's arbitration. Balanced against this, of course, is USADA's strong interest in fulfilling its mandate to root out doping in Olympic sports' - an interest which is shared by other athletes, and the international sports community as a whole. Further, though the Court has no hard data at its disposal on this issue, the increase in fiscal and administrative costs associated with "fixing" many of the alleged defects in USADA's arbitration process would likely be non-trivial.

The Court turns now to Armstrong's challenges to the arbitration procedures themselves, and the risk they will result in an erroneous deprivation of Armstrong's considerable liberty and property interests. As noted above, Armstrong's challenges are as follows: (1) he was not provided an adequate charging document; (2) he has no guarantee of a hearing by CAS; (3) he has no right to cross-examine or confront witnesses against him; (4) he has no right to an impartial arbitration panel; (5) he has no right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence; (6) he has no right to disclosure of cooperation agreements or inducements provided by USADA; (7) he has no right to obtain investigative witness statements; (8) he has no right to obtain full disclosure of laboratory analyses or an impartial assessment of their accuracy; and (9) he has no right to judicial review of the arbitrators' decision by a United States court.The Supreme Court has already rejected challenges to arbitration based on speculation of bias by arbitration panels (challenge 4, above), the relatively narrow discovery available in arbitration as compared to judicial proceedings (challenges 5, 6, 7, and 8), and limited judicial review options (challenge 9). See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 30-32 & n.4 (1991). This Court does likewise, and also rejects Armstrong's other challenges. Like the Supreme Court, this Court declines to assume either the pooi of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself,21 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, first to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where he is entitled to de novo review, and then to the courts of Switzerland, as permitted by Swiss law, if he so elects.23 Further, the record shows CAS routinely grants hearings in cases such as Armstrong's, and this Court declines to presume it will break with tradition in this particular instance. Thus, the Court rejects challenges (2), (4), and (9). With respect to challenges (5), (6), and (7), as Armstrong admits, such disclosures are only applicable to criminal matters, and there is no reason to believe they would be required under UCI' s rules (which Armstrong argues are applicable and, presumably, valid), much less the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Challenge (8) again asks this Court to predict what may occur at arbitration, and to assume the arbitration panel will give undue weight to adverse laboratory findings, both of which the Court declines to do. Though USADA's woefully inadequate charging letter makes it difficult to say with certainty, it appears USADA's evidence will revolve more around eyewitness testimony than lab results. In any case, Armstrong's lawyers will have the opportunity to question the reliability of any adverse test results at arbitration, and the Court must presume the arbitration panel will discount the weight of those results to the extent it finds them unreliable or unpersuasive.24 Similarly, Armstrong will be able to call into question the reliability of any witness testimony, by affidavit or otherwise, that was not subject to cross-examination, and the panel may discount the weight of that evidence accordingly.25 The Court thus rejects challenges (3) and (8). This leaves only challenge (1). As the Court stated at the hearing, and has alluded to above, the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern. 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. 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, in accordance with routine procedure. The Court takes counsel at his word.26 With the understanding Armstrong has received all the process he is due at this time, and will receive adequate notification of the charges against him in time to prepare a defense, the Court rejects Armstrong's first challenge. On balance, the Court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process.27 The Court therefore rejects Armstrong's due process claims, to the extent they challenge USADA's arbitration procedures. Accordingly, the Court grants USADA's motion and dismisses those claims without prejudice. The Court turns now to Armstrong's remaining claims.

[PQJ]

The fix is in! (How does Armstong do it! ;))

$$$ and influence. Lots of it. Next question.

[Tony T]

A federal judge has ruled there were and would not have been any due process violations (cut and pasted directly from Judge Sparks' ruling):

I don't think that any of the 23 senators read "The Paceline".

[Aaron O]

Which they have already decided.

The Ted Stevens Sports act outlines that national sports bodies and their members are to agree to binding arbitration to resolve disputes.

Judge Sam Sparks has found that the arbitration process used by USADA satisfied due process.

I think this all boils down to this:

Those who like the outcome of a well established process: "Justice has prevailed."

Those who do not like the outcome of a well established process: "Due process rights were violated."

Guess what - things can be decided and revisited if judges/juries/legislative bodies don't like how current process is working. It's a constant evolution and re-visitation of issues. As far as your two sides comment, neither applies to me. I think he was guilty and I also think the current organizational challenges between USADA-UCI are a mess. I don't think I know enough about the evidence OR process to have an opinion.

[Aaron O]

A federal judge has ruled there were and would not have been any due process violations (cut and pasted directly from Judge Sparks' ruling):

Armstrong's Due Process Challenges

Armstrong further alleges USADA' s arbitration procedures do not comport with due process. Specifically, he complains of the following alleged procedural deficiencies: (1) he was not provided an adequate charging document; (2) he has no guarantee of a hearing by the appellate arbitral panel; (3) he has no right to cross-examine or confront witnesses against him; (4) he has no right to an impartial arbitration panel; (5) he has no right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence; (6) he has no right to disclosure of cooperation agreements or inducements provided by USADA; (7) he has no right to obtain investigative witness statements; (8) he has no right to obtain full disclosure of laboratory analyses or an impartial assessment of their accuracy; and (9) he has no right to judicial review of the arbitrators' decision by a United States court.

Application:

Armstrong's due process claims fail as a matter of law, and must be dismissed. An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property 'be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." ClevelandBd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (quoting Mu/lane v. Cent. Hanover Bank &
Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950)). The Supreme Court has "described 'the root requirement' of the Due Process Clause as being 'that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest." Id. (quoting Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371,
379 (1971)). The Supreme Court has identified three factors which must be considered in determining whether particular government procedures comply with "the specific dictates of due process"....The Court begins by recognizing the substantial private interest involved: it is no exaggeration to say the future of Armstrong's career, and maybe also its past, will likely be determined by the result of USADA's arbitration. Balanced against this, of course, is USADA's strong interest in fulfilling its mandate to root out doping in Olympic sports' - an interest which is shared by other athletes, and the international sports community as a whole. Further, though the Court has no hard data at its disposal on this issue, the increase in fiscal and administrative costs associated with "fixing" many of the alleged defects in USADA's arbitration process would likely be non-trivial.

The Court turns now to Armstrong's challenges to the arbitration procedures themselves, and the risk they will result in an erroneous deprivation of Armstrong's considerable liberty and property interests. As noted above, Armstrong's challenges are as follows: (1) he was not provided an adequate charging document; (2) he has no guarantee of a hearing by CAS; (3) he has no right to cross-examine or confront witnesses against him; (4) he has no right to an impartial arbitration panel; (5) he has no right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence; (6) he has no right to disclosure of cooperation agreements or inducements provided by USADA; (7) he has no right to obtain investigative witness statements; (8) he has no right to obtain full disclosure of laboratory analyses or an impartial assessment of their accuracy; and (9) he has no right to judicial review of the arbitrators' decision by a United States court.The Supreme Court has already rejected challenges to arbitration based on speculation of bias by arbitration panels (challenge 4, above), the relatively narrow discovery available in arbitration as compared to judicial proceedings (challenges 5, 6, 7, and 8), and limited judicial review options (challenge 9). See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 30-32 & n.4 (1991). This Court does likewise, and also rejects Armstrong's other challenges. Like the Supreme Court, this Court declines to assume either the pooi of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself,21 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, first to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where he is entitled to de novo review, and then to the courts of Switzerland, as permitted by Swiss law, if he so elects.23 Further, the record shows CAS routinely grants hearings in cases such as Armstrong's, and this Court declines to presume it will break with tradition in this particular instance. Thus, the Court rejects challenges (2), (4), and (9). With respect to challenges (5), (6), and (7), as Armstrong admits, such disclosures are only applicable to criminal matters, and there is no reason to believe they would be required under UCI' s rules (which Armstrong argues are applicable and, presumably, valid), much less the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Challenge (8) again asks this Court to predict what may occur at arbitration, and to assume the arbitration panel will give undue weight to adverse laboratory findings, both of which the Court declines to do. Though USADA's woefully inadequate charging letter makes it difficult to say with certainty, it appears USADA's evidence will revolve more around eyewitness testimony than lab results. In any case, Armstrong's lawyers will have the opportunity to question the reliability of any adverse test results at arbitration, and the Court must presume the arbitration panel will discount the weight of those results to the extent it finds them unreliable or unpersuasive.24 Similarly, Armstrong will be able to call into question the reliability of any witness testimony, by affidavit or otherwise, that was not subject to cross-examination, and the panel may discount the weight of that evidence accordingly.25 The Court thus rejects challenges (3) and (8). This leaves only challenge (1). As the Court stated at the hearing, and has alluded to above, the deficiency of USADA's charging document is of serious constitutional concern. 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. 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, in accordance with routine procedure. The Court takes counsel at his word.26 With the understanding Armstrong has received all the process he is due at this time, and will receive adequate notification of the charges against him in time to prepare a defense, the Court rejects Armstrong's first challenge. On balance, the Court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association (AAA), are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process.27 The Court therefore rejects Armstrong's due process claims, to the extent they challenge USADA's arbitration procedures. Accordingly, the Court grants USADA's motion and dismisses those claims without prejudice. The Court turns now to Armstrong's remaining claims.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that an appeal on current law and a District Court's opinion meant that legislative bodies can't examine policy.

Trek and Lance Armstrong...and the cycling industry...are financially meaningless from the perspective of a US senator. What's happening is a backlash against the reported process, and a reexamination based on how it's played out. That is likely a circus, but such things always are. The question of whether due process is met is open ended and subject to revision on a go forward basis.

[PQJ]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that an appeal on current law and a District Court's opinion meant that legislative bodies can't examine policy.


I don't believe that's quite right, Aaron. "Due process" is a settled legal doctrine. It aint changing any time soon, and certainly not for a pro athlete who knew (or should have known) exactly what the rules were when he agreed in writing to be bound by them.

Trek and Lance Armstrong...and the cycling industry...are financially meaningless from the perspective of a US senator. What's happening is a backlash against the reported process, and a reexamination based on how it's played out. That is likely a circus, but such things always are. The question of whether due process is met is open ended and subject to revision on a go forward basis.

You see "backlash against reported process." I see the right wheels being greased with the right grease.

[cnighbor1]

Last week or so a woman hiker joined a search and rescue group to look for herself. She didn't know at 1st that it was herself she was looking for.
So I am assuming in a few weeks lance will be suing himself.
What a mess. I guess has sports got bigger and more money involved than it became important to get it clean. however all the agentics involved weren't ready for all that followed.

[Aaron O]

I don't believe that's quite right, Aaron. "Due process" is a settled legal doctrine. It aint changing any time soon, and certainly not for a pro athlete who knew (or should have known) exactly what the rules were when he agreed in writing to be bound by them.



You see "backlash against reported process." I see the right wheels being greased with the right grease.

Trek/LA/Cycling doesn't have enough grease to move the wheels of the Senate. Reported process flaws do. I'm not arguing that the senate should be involved, but you have a high profile case with a process that everyone from the UCI, to cyclists, to Jon Doe is questioning.

Due Process is an open ended legal principle subject to change and reinterpretation. See Miranda, wire tap laws, etc. It is not doctrine. Doctrine surrounding the principle of Due Process is subject to change and evolution.

[CunegoFan]

You don't need 23 Senators in your pocket. You just need a couple who are owed favors quid pro quo by other Senators for something with little political downside to get support.

This. Armstrong made friends when he supported the California extra tax on smokes.

The nice thing about this is that it will backfire on Armstrong. The USADA will be forced to write a damning report and do it sooner rather than later. The agency needs to bury Armstrong with the evidence.

[Tony T]

"Don Armstrong. I need a man who has powerful friends. I need a million dollars in cash. I need, Don Armstrong, all of those politicians that you carry around in your pocket, like so many nickels and dimes."

[Tony T]

"If Don Armstrong had all the senators, and the politicians in California, then he must share them, or let us others use them. He must let us draw the water from the well. Certainly he can present a bill for such services; after all... we are not Communists."

[rbtmcardle]

I still dont see how people can get past the information in this WADA statement.. if WADA are to be believed (frankly, I have more faith in WADA than any of the other participants in this mess) Armstrong clearly FAILED 6 drug tests for EPO 1999 when a reliable test was available in 2004.. the UCI with Armstrongs permission handed the forms to the lab and Le'Equipe wrote the article.. so much BS.. the man doped.. who cares. It just shows how immature he is to not fess up at this point.

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/wada_official_statement_vrijman_report.pdf

[slidey]

As much as I want to see Dopestrong stripped off all his fraudulent victories, there's too much money to be lost in maligning his fame...and, there's no forthcoming american hero in the pro-peloton who can be seen as a harbinger of wealthier times...and, most importantly this expose of the fake Lance just ensures that another fake hero isn't going to be easy to manufacture for quite some time!

Under these circumstances, I don't see Dopestrong suffering really; there are too many people's fortunes tied in, and too many blind sighted fans who still believe in the fairytale they were narrated to by the UCI.

Here's my prediction: Unless the UCI is razed to the ground, Lance is going to walk away from this as the victim!

[jet sanchez]

And there are Nike stores and Trek concept stores in California.

This conspiracy could go all the way to the top.

Every bike company has made massive gains in the US market thanks in part to Lance.

Television networks made boatloads of money broadcasting cycling races in the US whereas before Lance there was no audience.

[William]

Nike, Amgen, Trek, wall street group backers, Livestrong and it's supporters. That's a lot of green and a lot of votes. The two things that motivate the majority of politicians.

Just sayin'.





William

[Tony T]

Yeah, I guess they just couldn't "get to" the USADA

"If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can get to anyone". -- Don Armstrong

[CunegoFan]

Every bike company has made massive gains in the US market thanks in part to Lance.

Really? It could not have been a lot of middled aged yuppies who needed a way to keep the pounds off, none of whom race? You want to see growth, check out triathlon or cyclocross. Road racing, not so much. Take out the masters and the sport in the U.S. would wilt and die.

Television networks made boatloads of money broadcasting cycling races in the US whereas before Lance there was no audience.

For making boatloads of money those broadcasters sure did have a sparse number of advertisers. Before I switched to watching races with streams and torrents, I would get sick of the ads being played in heavy rotation.

[CunegoFan]

Here is an answer for ya. California senator Michael J Rubio ramrodded the letter. He has a Livestrong banner on his twitter pic.

[Tony T]

It's too bad threads like this don't actually generate electricity or something.

Only conspiracy theories. ;)

[Aaron O]

Nike, Amgen, Trek, wall street group backers, Livestrong and it's supporters. That's a lot of green and a lot of votes. The two things that motivate the majority of politicians.

Just sayin'.





William

I really don't think Livestrong is sending checks or lobbyists to influence senators, nor do I think Nike is invested enough in cycling to care. I think we have an exaggerated opinion of the impact and dollars of our hobby.

[William]

My point being there are a lot of LA and LS supporters outside of cycling circles.

IMO, LA is a corporation with a lot of backers. More people than just LA have a stake in keeping it afloat.






William

[Aaron O]

My point being there are a lot of LA and LS supporters outside of cycling circles.

IMO, LA is a corporation with a lot of backers. More people than just LA have a stake in keeping it afloat.






William

And that I agree with...it's a public circus, a lot of folks think it reflects negatively on the organization's due process and they're following that public interest. Is this something I really want my Senator concerned about? Probably not - but it's a lot more valid than the performance investigation they put on about baseball.

[pmac]

I really don't think Livestrong is sending checks or lobbyists to influence senators, nor do I think Nike is invested enough in cycling to care. I think we have an exaggerated opinion of the impact and dollars of our hobby.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531353567249064.html

[PQJ]

I really don't think Livestrong is sending checks or lobbyists to influence senators, nor do I think Nike is invested enough in cycling to care. I think we have an exaggerated opinion of the impact and dollars of our hobby.

Just curious - do you believe Lance raced and won clean?

[William]

Well, how come the senators haven't jumped into the fray on the behalf of the the other three hundred and twenty or so athletes that the USADA has sanctioned since 2001? LA comes up on their radar and you have politicians jumping in???

http://www.usada.org/sanctions/






William

[slidey]

I see absolutely no logical reason to preclude that possibility, in fact I see plenty of economic motivation to suspect Livestrong would indeed benefit by bribing the senators to get their job done.

I really don't think Livestrong is sending checks or lobbyists to influence senators, nor do I think Nike is invested enough in cycling to care. I think we have an exaggerated opinion of the impact and dollars of our hobby.

Follow the money, always!
It's exactly how this election is being run too...money! Oh and when money becomes too obvious, there's always the politics of fear :help:

Yeah, I got some money from Livestrong to side track this discussion to something else :rolleyes:

[merlincustom1]

This question should be asked to the 23 Senators that signed the letter that make this claim.

Legally, the judiciary has the last word on what constitutes due process. I simply asked the question to the one who made the claim that USADA's process was completely lacking.

[Vientomas]

Cycling may be a hobby to you and I, but others they have made millions from it. Those folks who have made millions have a vested interest in their golden goose remaining untarnished so that the money keeps a flowin'.

[William]

Cycling may be a hobby to you and I, but others they have made millions from it. Those folks who have made millions have a vested interest in their golden goose remaining untarnished so that the money keeps a flowin'.

There is a bit of coin to be made in the industry....

2011 was a solid year for the U.S. bicycle industry, with direct effect sales of $6 billion, including retail sales of bicycles, related parts and accessories, through all channels of distribution.

The size of the industry has remained remarkably stable since 2003, with sales between $5.8 billion and $6.1 billion each year (the exception being 2009). For comparison purposes, we have projected the industry at $5.3 billion in 2002, $5.4 billion in 2003, $5.8 billion in 2004, $6.1 billion in 2005 (an all-time high), $5.8 billion in 2006, $6.0 billion in 2007, $6.0 billion in 2008, $5.6 billion in 2009, $6 billion in 2010, and $6 billion in 2011.

http://nbda.com/articles/industry-overview-2011-pg34.htm







William

[djg21]

I don't assume anything ;)

Whether or not there is ample due process is, to me, a question for judges, juries and legislative bodies.

And one federal judge already has held that the AAA Arbitration procedure would have provided Armstrong with all the process to which he was due. He had an opportunity to participate in a name-clearing hearing, and he can fault only himself from refusing to take part.

Now to stir up a hornets nest, I'm curious as to the party affiliations of the 23 State Senators who called for the investigation. Senssenbrenner, who tried earlier to spark a congressional investigation of USADA, is a Republican from Wisconsin (I believe for the congressional district in which Trek is headquartered).

I'd also like to see an accounting of the political contributions made by Armstrong, LiveStrong, Nike, Trek, etc. Of course there is a quid pro quo; this is how politics works. If the politicians were not getting something in return for their lobbying, they would not have signed the letter and risked becoming aligned with Lance, who may yet be proven irrefutably to be a cheat, fraud, etc. All of the evidence is not yet public and who knows how damning the undisclosed evidence will be!

On another note, over the weekend I was with a number of in-laws who are avowed right-wing nutjobs. Their idea of exercise is tuning in Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Inexplicably, each of these in-laws recently has become a huge Armstrong supporter (they couldn't have cared less three weeks ago, except when chortling about "cycling not being a 'Murikan sport.")

Some of this undoubtedly arises out of xenophobia -- my in-laws couldn't help from blaming the French, who "always have been gunning for Lance. " There was also the typical nonsense about the liberal media being after Lance. But I didn't think that Lance's trevails had become a partisan issue? Anyone else seeing this?

[Aaron O]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303612804577531353567249064.html

The article wants me to sign up for the WSJ - not able to comment.

The follow the money comment assumes there is huge money in cycling (huge as relative to a US Senator). I doubt there is. I think what you're seeing is politicians reacting to a lot of questions about the USADA. As far as why they're commenting now and not about the other XXX athletes, I don't know how many of them were suspended without testing positive, and it's quite clear that LA's prominence would drive the scope of the issue. I think if Usain Bolt were stripped of gold a decade from now without having tested positive, there might be questions. Frankly 6 billion isn't a very large industry - and what % of that is related to Lance Armstrong? 6B isn't buying 23 senators.

As to whether I think Lance doped - I do think he did because I think it's rampant in our sport and athletics across the board. I frankly don't care and don't have an issue if athletes juice - in fact I dare say the public wants juiced athletes, bigger tackles in football, faster finishes, etc.

One federal judge elected not to challenge existing laws/administrative law, and that means all other parties are satisfied? Huh? Administrative law is almost always pursued through administrative channels and only gets heard in other venues after an appeals process. What does that have to do with senators looking at an organization that is under scrutiny due to a high profile case? That judge decided that he didn't see a violation on the part of the USADA...that doesn't mean legislators aren't able to look at prior agreements anew based on a high profile case. Lance has more money, and a bigger megaphone, to challenge the agency...and that vocal battle is picking up interest.

[Tony T]

Legally, the judiciary has the last word on what constitutes due process. I simply asked the question to the one who made the claim that USADA's process was completely lacking.

And that's what the letter written by the senators ask, which is why my comment was that this question should asked of them:

"Additionally, USAD's new, self-imposed rules do not provide athletes appropriate due process rights which all other Americans enjoy.""

[CunegoFan]

On another note, over the weekend I was with a number of in-laws who are avowed right-wing nutjobs. Their idea of exercise is tuning in Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Inexplicably, each of these in-laws recently has become a huge Armstrong supporter (they couldn't have cared less three weeks ago, except when chortling about "cycling not being a 'Murikan sport.")

Some of this undoubtedly arises out of xenophobia -- my in-laws couldn't help from blaming the French, who "always have been gunning for Lance. " There was also the typical nonsense about the liberal media being after Lance. But I didn't think that Lance's travails had become a partisan issue? Anyone else seeing this?

There have been some right wing nutters who are portraying the issue as "Obama strips an American hero of his wins." There is a super PAC that is running with the issue.

On top of that Armstrong has always had a base of support based on jingoism.

[Aaron O]

There have been some right wing nutters who are portraying the issue as "Obama strips an American hero of his wins." There is a super PAC that is running with the issue.

On top of that Armstrong has always had a base of support based on jingoism.

Please explain this one. As far as I can tell Armstrong has had a base of support of cycling fans. Is there a sense of pride at an American winning a Euro event? Probably...but how is that different from the Olympics? Or rooting for your local XXXX team?

FYI - I'm an Obama voter usually considered a moderate and on some issues am notably left of the dial.

[djg21]

There have been some right wing nutters who are portraying the issue as "Obama strips an American hero of his wins." There is a super PAC that is running with the issue.

On top of that Armstrong has always had a base of support based on jingoism.

I can't tell is this is intended to be somewhat sarcastic. In particular, a "Super Pac"? This is a joke?

The rest I buy into, especially the element of jingoism. I just found it surprizing given that these folks get their daily stream of (mis)information from Fox News, and Fox has been dismissive of Lance.

[Tony T]

This conspiracy goes all the way to the top!

[slidey]

Very interesting observations!


Now to stir up a hornets nest, I'm curious as to the party affiliations of the 23 State Senators who called for the investigation. Senssenbrenner, who tried earlier to spark a congressional investigation of USADA, is a Republican from Wisconsin (I believe for the congressional district in which Trek is headquartered).

I don't listen to any news network proactively...so I'm quite unbiased. But, I can see quite easily how this can be turned into a partisan thing...from the Republican side, I'd imagine hearing the cries of liberal media/global conspiracy attacks on a true american hero, a true american hero who handbuilt a wonderful corporation whose sole purpose is to martyr itself to eradicate cancer (bullcrap)...and from the Democratic side, it's the cries of the 1% vs the 99%, economic disparity, how the nation should rise against it, etc.

No matter who the protagonist is, there's always a scope to politicise it - so long as they have money/fame/power, and a nationality. I can almost write down an algorithm as to how both these sides would react to any alteration of the above two (maybe three, if power is made into a separate variable) variables, for any issue. No logic, no rhyme, no reason...just fight! My head hurts thinking of the drivel both these sides are capable of...morons :cool:

There was also the typical nonsense about the liberal media being after Lance. But I didn't think that Lance's travails had become a partisan issue? Anyone else seeing this?

[merlincustom1]

Guess what - things can be decided and revisited if judges/juries/legislative bodies don't like how current process is working. It's a constant evolution and re-visitation of issues. As far as your two sides comment, neither applies to me. I think he was guilty and I also think the current organizational challenges between USADA-UCI are a mess. I don't think I know enough about the evidence OR process to have an opinion.

As for the USADA-UCI mess, that's all down to UCI being all over the place on the jurisdictional issue. UCI clearly has a conflict in this case specifically. Their original position of staying out of it was correct. Since the charging letter implicated them, they couldn't possibly assert results management authority here.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . let's keep any political angles civil and patient in this. If this goes political some mod action would need to be taken based on the user rules.

Thanks . . .

BBD

[CunegoFan]

I can't tell is this is intended to be somewhat sarcastic. In particular, a "Super Pac"? This is a joke?

Restore America's Voice PAC. They are an anti-Obama PAC that has run ads that use the Armstrong vs. USADA angle. They put up a standupforlance.com website.

Here is the Sunlight Foundation's profile of the PAC:

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/outside-spending/committee/restore-americas-voice-pac/C00489807/

[CunegoFan]

Now to stir up a hornets nest, I'm curious as to the party affiliations of the 23 State Senators who called for the investigation. Senssenbrenner, who tried earlier to spark a congressional investigation of USADA, is a Republican from Wisconsin (I believe for the congressional district in which Trek is headquartered).

They are from both parties. This is a few senators who worked with Armstrong and Livestrong to put extra taxes on cigarettes. Now they are paying Armstrong back and managed to talk a bunch of colleagues into signing their letter.

[William]

The article wants me to sign up for the WSJ - not able to comment.

The follow the money comment assumes there is huge money in cycling (huge as relative to a US Senator). I doubt there is. I think what you're seeing is politicians reacting to a lot of questions about the USADA. As far as why they're commenting now and not about the other XXX athletes, I don't know how many of them were suspended without testing positive, and it's quite clear that LA's prominence would drive the scope of the issue. I think if Usain Bolt were stripped of gold a decade from now without having tested positive, there might be questions. Frankly 6 billion isn't a very large industry - and what % of that is related to Lance Armstrong? 6B isn't buying 23 senators.

As to whether I think Lance doped - I do think he did because I think it's rampant in our sport and athletics across the board. I frankly don't care and don't have an issue if athletes juice - in fact I dare say the public wants juiced athletes, bigger tackles in football, faster finishes, etc.

One federal judge elected not to challenge existing laws/administrative law, and that means all other parties are satisfied? Huh? Administrative law is almost always pursued through administrative channels and only gets heard in other venues after an appeals process. What does that have to do with senators looking at an organization that is under scrutiny due to a high profile case? That judge decided that he didn't see a violation on the part of the USADA...that doesn't mean legislators aren't able to look at prior agreements anew based on a high profile case. Lance has more money, and a bigger megaphone, to challenge the agency...and that vocal battle is picking up interest.

There is your hammer, and your nail.

Where were the senators when Marion Jones was on the hot seat? She was high profile and never tested positive either. If she hadn't admitted to it she might not have gone down...oh, wait a second....;)





William

[Vientomas]

USADA is not a government "agency" subject to the APA or subject to judicial review of their administrative actions as would a true government agency. USADA is a private entity which receives a grant from the government. That fact does not make USADA a government agency.

See: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sportslaw

[Tony T]

They are from both parties. This is a few senators who worked with Armstrong and Livestrong to put extra taxes on cigarettes.

Now Armstrong is more powerful than the tobacco industry, Wow!!

.

[Vientomas]

True American Hero - this is good comedic material. "I don't care you ya' are, that's funny right there."

http://www.standupforlance.com/

[rugbysecondrow]

. . . let's keep any political angles civil and patient in this. If this goes political some mod action would need to be taken based on the user rules.

Thanks . . .

BBD

Because of course politics might make the Lance discussion uncivilized . :)

[pmac]

The article wants me to sign up for the WSJ - not able to comment.



Sorry, I'm not a subscriber either. I copied the URL from a page that googling 'livestrong lobbyist's agenda is questioned' took me too. Why it's not restricted from that point of entry is beyond me.

[pmac]

Now Armstrong is more powerful than the tobacco industry, Wow!!

.

Umm, I think tobacco won that round. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[PQJ]

They are from both parties. This is a few senators who worked with Armstrong and Livestrong to put extra taxes on cigarettes. Now they are paying Armstrong back and managed to talked a bunch of colleagues into signing their letter.

Plus, the letter itself doesn't name the senators' names (other than Rubio of course). It just contains their signatures, most of which are illegible. It also contains nothing more than the same spurious claims being shat out by the Dopestrong propaganda machine.

[Tony T]

Umm, I think tobacco won that round. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Then I guess his powers are limited after all.

[Aaron O]

USADA is not a government "agency" subject to the APA or subject to judicial review of their administrative actions as would a true government agency. USADA is a private entity which receives a grant from the government. That fact does not make USADA a government agency.

See: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1023&context=sportslaw

I am NOT a subject matter expert on the USADA or the world doping agreements...however, my limited understanding is that funding makes them a quasi-government agency, like many other quasi-government agencies (many local driving bureaus are a classic example), and that based on federal funding and government involvement in the doping agreements, a senator can be considered a stakeholder. Follow the money works in this instance too - if you're taking govt. dollars ;)

In my life experience, and experiences in the legal area, typically quasi-govt. agencies are the poorest run. You get all of the arrogance and lack of accountability common to government agencies without being pressured by votes or elected officials. Administrative law is a deep, dark hole worthy of a Kafka novel.

[Aaron O]

Because of course politics might make the Lance discussion uncivilized . :)

:banana:

Rugby FTW

[Tony T]

USADA's Response: USADA ’looking forward’ to answering questions on its role after state senators request review (http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12804/USADA-looking-forward-to-answering-questions-on-its-role-after-state-senators-request-review.aspx)

"USADA insisted that the complaint against it didn’t stack up. “We look forward to answering any question these state representatives have about the Congressionally-mandated process that was approved by athletes, the United States Olympic Committee and all U.S. sport federations,” said its CEO Travis Tygart."

...no mention by Tygart of the senators being in Armstrong's pocket ;)

[Rueda Tropical]

however, my limited understanding is that funding makes them a quasi-government agency, like many other quasi-government agencies


Lots of businesses and individual's get government money -from Exxon to hospitals to you name it. Are they all "quasi-government" entities?

[William]

True American Hero - this is good comedic material. "I don't care you ya' are, that's funny right there."

http://www.standupforlance.com/


Wow....just....wow! http://www.americananglersfishing.com/Smileys/default/hscratch2.gif :confused:






William

[slowgoing]

This is going to backfire. USADA will release evidence LA didn't want the public to see.

[rugbysecondrow]

This is going to backfire. USADA will release evidence LA didn't want the public to see.

Lance didn't rape, sell drug, beat his wife or anything else actually deamed henious...he doped for bike racing. He did something considered a minor infraction by the general public, maybe even the status quo by others. Folks do not care.

There have been many threads here (with the same 5 people talking in them) while the rest of society prepares for the NFL season, MLB playoffs, college football or other real sports to start. How can it backfire when the general public doesn't give a rats arse? Do a Google search

The public...the public doesn't give a ****. You guys are a subset of a fringe sport, and that is where this issue resides within the framework of a national discussion. Just because a few of ya'll talk incessently about it here doesn't mean anybody else is, it is really just projecting.

[Vientomas]

When it's on the cover of Newsweek you know that it is not a matter of general public discourse because Newsweek caters to their audience, fringe cyclists.

[Aaron O]

If society cared about doping in sports there wouldn't be an NFL. Steroids wouldn't be the most abused high school drug. Olympic athletes wouldn't overwhelmingly state they'd be willing to cheat if guaranteed victory. Ping Pong teams wouldn't be accused of taking stimulants focusing their concentration. China wouldn't defend its athletes by saying everyone does it. Cyclists would be outraged over Lance instead of the comments they've made...we all know how prevalent doping has been in cycling and all sports.

The truth is that we put too much focus on athletics. We want bigger, faster and stronger. We want victory. It gets more intense when you throw nationalism into the mix. ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

[PQJ]

Lance didn't rape, sell drug, beat his wife or anything else actually deamed henious...he doped for bike racing. He did something considered a minor infraction by the general public, maybe even the status quo by others. Folks do not care.

There have been many threads here (with the same 5 people talking in them) while the rest of society prepares for the NFL season, MLB playoffs, college football or other real sports to start. How can it backfire when the general public doesn't give a rats arse? Do a Google search

The public...the public doesn't give a ****. You guys are a subset of a fringe sport, and that is where this issue resides within the framework of a national discussion. Just because a few of ya'll talk incessently about it here doesn't mean anybody else is, it is really just projecting.

Why read these threads then, to say nothing of participating on them?

[Grant McLean]

Lance didn't rape, sell drug, beat his wife or anything else actually deamed henious...he doped for bike racing. He did something considered a minor infraction by the general public, maybe even the status quo by others. Folks do not care.

Lance didn't dope "for bike racing", that's a cute obfuscation of the reality
he obtained tens of millions of dollars from doping. ( and if you believe Lance
doped, the $7.5 million legal settlement from SCA promotions was obtained
by a huge fraud that makes Landis and Hamilton look amateur)

Whether people care or not, is not really my concern. I actually find it very
interesting what justifications people will come up with, some by faith, others
by ignorance, some by willful distortion of the facts. Those determined to undermine
the seriousness of charges do cycling and society a disservice,

-g

[rugbysecondrow]

Why read these threads then, to say nothing of participating on them?

because it seems your discussion, held in a vaccum, lacks perspective. This perspective.


Lance didn't dope "for bike racing", that's a cute obfuscation of the reality
he obtained tens of millions of dollars from doping. ( and if you believe Lance
doped, the $7.5 million legal settlement from SCA promotions was obtained
by a huge fraud that makes Landis and Hamilton look amateur)

Whether people care or not, is not really my concern. I actually find it very
interesting what justifications people will come up with, some by faith, others
by ignorance, some by willful distortion of the facts. Those determined to undermine
the seriousness of charges do cycling and society a disservice,

-g

Nope, it is a bike race. Yes, sponsorships and money came from that, but he cheated at racing. Bonds cheated at baseball, Merriweather at football, Jones at the Olympics.

My concern is not what you are concerned with, which I why I didn't respond to you. I specifically responded to the comment relating to what the public would or would not care to know...they don't care.

Frankly, I am not concerned with the seriousness of the charges, they are not seroius to me. Is there a criminal indictment, a civil judgement? Nope. When there is, then maybe it will be serious. Until then all this seems like Lance was a doper in a dopers sport, competing against other dopers.

[Aaron O]

OK...let's focus this in because the potential senate inquiry isn't really about whether Lance doped.

The USADA is a quasi-government agency because part of their authority derives from Congress and the majority of their funding as a non-profit is government funding. The remaining funding, sports groups, is based in Congress granting the USADA authority and over site.

There is a loud, public battle being fought over the actions of the USADA...and yes, because of who Lance is, he's going to get more press and more media coverage on his position and battle. He's raising loud, public questions about due process and the USADA's methodology. Thus far, not all evidence has been released, and by US court standards of due process (not agency law standards), what is being reported looks thin to a lot of people. That agency was properly authorized, but that doesn't make them immune from further over site and changes. The agency authorized by congress might now have to explain to congress, who authorized their power, what that process and methodology is more fully.


The idea that Livestrong is buying off 23 senators is, IMO, ludicrous. Saying his fame and power is why the megaphone has reached them is fair, but this all powerful Lance thing is silly. Cycling is a niche hobby - we aren't very important.

Should the senate be worried about this when we have bigger fish to fry? It is not what I'd chose my Senator's time for, but that's often the case, and it doesn't mean the agency law shouldn't be looked at. I'd rather see it examined at the court level post-appeals process, but the megaphone outcry has legislators involved.

As a general attitude, I distrust quasi-governmental agencies and agency law. It's often extremely capricious and too difficult to challenge. Anyone in Philly who has dealt with the PPA knows this. When dealing with a for profit group, my defense against improper process is my patronage. I can write letters to an executive who depends on consumer dollars for his company's success. I can bring issues to federal or local court venues. When an agency is purely governmental, I have some leverage with a politician on the other end of the agency. I can involve my council people to intervene. Groups that are quasi-government are, IME, the worst of both worlds; they tend to be arrogant and answer to no one but themselves. Their internal appeals process are typically a waste of time and fighting it out at the court level after the internal appeal is problematic from a time/cost perspective.

To me, without knowing all of the evidence and just based on what I've seen...I'm seeing an arrogant agency that has too little over site and which can burn you with internal policy. Do I want my senators involved? It's really not what I'd deem a critical issue, but, GENERALLY, I'd prefer more oversite of groups like this. My position is not really based on Lance or his case and is more a matter of a dislike of this kind of organization and agency law.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Because of course politics might make the Lance discussion uncivilized . :)

Just doin' my job and earnin' my paycheck. :)

Uh, wait a sec . . . :eek:

BBD

[Grant McLean]

Frankly, I am not concerned with the seriousness of the charges, they are not seroius to me.

Apparently you're qualified for upper management at the UCI, send them your CV.

-g

[Chance]

While attending a family funeral last weekend, many non-cyclists who knew my following of the sport approached me with questions regarding how they could take Lance’s wins away without him having failed tests. Didn’t really want to get into it with them, but it showed me how average Americans are concerned with what they perceive as lack of due process. They didn’t seem overly concerned with possible guilt as much as abuse of power.

[54ny77]

well said.

i've dealt plenty with large, national quasi-governmental agencies, and its a morass like no other.

mall cops run amok is the kindest thing i can think of.

OK...let's focus this in because the potential senate inquiry isn't really about whether Lance doped.

The USADA is a quasi-government agency because part of their authority derives from Congress and the majority of their funding as a non-profit is government funding. The remaining funding, sports groups, is based in Congress granting the USADA authority and over site.

There is a loud, public battle being fought over the actions of the USADA...and yes, because of who Lance is, he's going to get more press and more media coverage on his position and battle. He's raising loud, public questions about due process and the USADA's methodology. Thus far, not all evidence has been released, and by US court standards of due process (not agency law standards), what is being reported looks thin to a lot of people. That agency was properly authorized, but that doesn't make them immune from further over site and changes. The agency authorized by congress might now have to explain to congress, who authorized their power, what that process and methodology is more fully.


The idea that Livestrong is buying off 23 senators is, IMO, ludicrous. Saying his fame and power is why the megaphone has reached them is fair, but this all powerful Lance thing is silly. Cycling is a niche hobby - we aren't very important.

Should the senate be worried about this when we have bigger fish to fry? It is not what I'd chose my Senator's time for, but that's often the case, and it doesn't mean the agency law shouldn't be looked at. I'd rather see it examined at the court level post-appeals process, but the megaphone outcry has legislators involved.

As a general attitude, I distrust quasi-governmental agencies and agency law. It's often extremely capricious and too difficult to challenge. Anyone in Philly who has dealt with the PPA knows this. When dealing with a for profit group, my defense against improper process is my patronage. I can write letters to an executive who depends on consumer dollars for his company's success. I can bring issues to federal or local court venues. When an agency is purely governmental, I have some leverage with a politician on the other end of the agency. I can involve my council people to intervene. Groups that are quasi-government are, IME, the worst of both worlds; they tend to be arrogant and answer to no one but themselves. Their internal appeals process are typically a waste of time and fighting it out at the court level after the internal appeal is problematic from a time/cost perspective.

To me, without knowing all of the evidence and just based on what I've seen...I'm seeing an arrogant agency that has too little over site and which can burn you with internal policy. Do I want my senators involved? It's really not what I'd deem a critical issue, but, GENERALLY, I'd prefer more oversite of groups like this. My position is not really based on Lance or his case and is more a matter of a dislike of this kind of organization and agency law.

[Grant McLean]

They didn’t seem overly concerned with possible guilt as much as abuse of power.

And that's what Lance paid the lawyers to do, come up with a brilliant strategy
to create doubt in the court of general public opinion. Got to hand it to them.
These days, the fear of government takeovers resonates much more with the
average person than it used to. People would rather blame their government
institutions than their heros.

-g

[Chance]

And that's what Lance paid the lawyers to do, come up with a brilliant strategy
to create doubt in the court of general public opinion. Got to hand it to them.
These days, the fear of government takeovers resonates much more with the
average person than it used to. People would rather blame their government
institutions than their heros.

-g

Grant, perhaps it’s more common in my family (although doubtful), but most Americans can separate an issue from the process. Makes me feel better to think so anyway. Personally think Lance probably cheated like most other cyclists at his level during same time period. Having said that, the process used to go after him is not right either. And you know what they say about two wrongs ……

[Aaron O]

Grant, perhaps it’s more common in my family (although doubtful), but most Americans can separate an issue from the process. Makes me feel better to think so anyway. Personally think Lance probably cheated like most other cyclists at his level during same time period. Having said that, the process used to go after him is not right either. And you know what they say about two wrongs ……

I think, if you asked, that's how most people feel and that's how those 23 senators feel. It isn't about Lance, it's about tactics, over-site and procedure.

[Tony T]

I think, if you asked, that's how most people feel and that's how those 23 senators feel. It isn't about Lance, it's about tactics, over-site and procedure.

Even the judge commented on this in his opinion.

[PQJ]

/\/\/\ And yet the judge still ruled Dopestrong's due process rights weren't and likely wouldn't be violated. Go figure!

[Vientomas]

Dicta.

[slidey]

haha... +1

Apparently you're qualified for upper management at the UCI, send them your CV.

-g

[Tony T]

/\/\/\ And yet the judge still ruled due process rights weren't and likely wouldn't be violated. Go figure!

He wasn't there to rule on the USADA's motives, yet he felt compelled to call...
...the USADA charging document “woefuly inadequate,” observing that “…the deficiency of USADA”s charging document is of serious constitutional concern.” Going even further, the Judge noted that in Armstrong’s case, “USADA’s conduct raises serious concerns about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.”

Sort of like going off on a tangent, like you did...

go figure

[Aaron O]

/\/\/\ And yet the judge still ruled Dopestrong's due process rights weren't and likely wouldn't be violated. Go figure!

Which doesn't in any way change how a public servant might ask an agency with congressional authorization about their process. The judgement that one person made at the district level doesn't say that the agency's policies are consistent with public views and beliefs about due process...it said that, in this case, the agency law was adequate prior to appeals process and the agency was properly authorized. Lance would have to go through the agency appeals process before bringing it up again...which is how agency law typically works. That's why it is so essential to have proper over-site of agencies.

A lot of you folks are reading a lot more into that judgement than what is actually there. It decided that the PRE-APPEAL process is not an inherent violation of due process based on one judge's reasoning. The court essentially bowed out and said you have to appeal through the agency before it's a district court matter. That's how agency law works. For LA to have district court stop agency process at that point would require overwhelming evidence of improper procedure, or stature, by a congress appointed agency. Not a great case, but it was LAs attempt to not go through agency law.

[PQJ]

Tony T(angent)?

[Grant McLean]

Grant, perhaps it’s more common in my family (although doubtful), but most Americans can separate an issue from the process. Makes me feel better to think so anyway. Personally think Lance probably cheated like most other cyclists at his level during same time period. Having said that, the process used to go after him is not right either. And you know what they say about two wrongs ……

Absolutely, let's separate the issue of doping from the process.
Let's also separate legal defence lawyer posturing, tactics, mumbo jumbo
and smoke screens from the facts.

So this process, that has been used to ban dozens American athletes
without a positive test, and I think another 300 with a positive, are victims
of an unjust process, that until now has been ignored?

wow, I guess we freedom and fairness loving citizens have another
reason to be thankful to Lance Armstrong. I was apparently wrong to
assume it's just now that Lance questions the process, it becomes viewed
as illegitimate. Sorry, I don't buy that. The USADA has confirmed they're
happy to entertain whatever inquiries into their process their oversight bodies
would like to pursue.

-g

[Aaron O]

Absolutely, let's separate the issue of doping from the process.
Let's also separate legal defence lawyer posturing, tactics, mumbo jumbo
and smoke screens from the facts.

So this process, that has been used to ban dozens American athletes
without a positive test, and I think another 300 with a positive, are victims
of an unjust process, that until now has been ignored?

wow, I guess we freedom and fairness loving citizens have another
reason to be thankful to Lance Armstrong. I was apparently wrong to
assume it's just now that Lance questions the process, it becomes viewed
as illegitimate. Sorry, I don't buy that. The USADA has confirmed they're
happy to entertain whatever inquiries into their process their oversight bodies
would like to pursue.

-g

Because others went through the process without as much attention doesn't validate the process. It's also amazing how anything someone doesn't want to hear, or agree with, is called mumbo jumbo. I don't know why these pesky attorneys bother with their mumbo jumobo and representing their clients at all...they should just just show up and plead guilty to whatever their clients are charged with. :rolleyes:

Who needs a legal system at all? We can just try via court room TV polls!

There was a recent case in Philly...a local lawyer was given a parking ticket that didn't comply with agency guide lines. The lawyer challenged it within the agency and, surprisingly, lost the appeal. He then challenged it in municipal court...

The agency attempted to drop the case an hour before the case was heard...the judge issued a stinging rebuke challenging agency process, but the agency's position was that they dropped the case, therefor there was no reason to appeal and no courtroom decision questioning the entire agency process.

Thousands of other people before that lawyer went through the process, does that mean the lawyer was wrong, or the agency justified?

That's the problem here...agency law is often unchallenged by courts and the majority subject to it have minimal access to a legitimate appeals process. They often have minimal over-site and there is little influence that the average guy has. Maybe Lance's fame and position gave him the ability to challenge process more strongly than others, but others not having the means to fight isn't a justification of what happened to Lance, or them. I am by no means a subject matter expert on the USADA or the Lance Armstrong case, but I do think, based on things I've read, that you do potentially have an agency run amok.

[Tony T]

A lot of you folks are reading a lot more into that judgement than what is actually there.

Worse, deciding not to participate in the arbitration process in viewed as an admission of guilt.

[Grant McLean]

Because others went through the process without as much attention doesn't validate the process. It's also amazing how anything someone doesn't want to hear, or agree with, is called mumbo jumbo. I don't know why these pesky attorneys bother with their mumbo jumobo and representing their clients at all...they should just just show up and plead guilty to whatever their clients are charged with. :rolleyes:


I'm glad the debate over the legitimacy of the process is part of the discussion,
because Lance's lawyers say it's unfair doesn't make it so.

The tactic of putting the system on trial instead of Lance is what I roll my eyes at.
It's just part of the plan to make this a circus and not about the evidence,
which is what it should be about.

-g

[Aaron O]

I'm glad the debate over the legitimacy of the process is part of the discussion,
because Lance's lawyers say it's unfair doesn't make it so.

The tactic of putting the system on trial instead of Lance is what I roll my eyes at.
It's just part of the plan to make this a circus and not about the evidence,
which is what it should be about.

-g

I disagree...I have serious concerns about that process after what I've read. Am I an expert? No...not at all. The integrity of the process is also a lot more important to me than the guilt of one person, even one as important as LA. In other words...just because someone is guilty doesn't mean you get to torture them. I am more afraid of agency law violations than I am of the impact LA cheating will have on the world.

None of that is to say I think LA is innocent, but when a quasi-government agency has the power to take away his right to compete/sell his labor, I have concerns that they are applying those decisions fairly and in a way consistent with doctrine surrounding due process. I think the court's decision was justified...you can't say the process is a violation of due process just by existing, and they are duly authorized, but I'd like to see authorizing bodies exerting more control of agencies that, as a practical matter, answer to no one.

Without lawyers working for their clients interests and challenging process, there would be even less of a check on overreach. It's sad that it takes a LA to challenge the system, but I'm glad it's being challenged and...based on what I've read (and am not an expert)...I have concerns.

[Vientomas]

To ensure we are all on the same figurative page, can someone please describe the "process" or provide a link to a site which describes the "process"? Otherwise we may be speaking of different concepts.

[Grant McLean]

I have serious concerns about that process after what I've read. Am I an expert? No...not at all. The integrity of the process is also a lot more important to me than the guilt of one person, even one as important as LA.

Skepticism is great. But i've seen so much mischaracterization language of
the process, it has led me to think that many people challenging the legitimacy
of the system of arbitration are simply parroting the charges of Lance's legal
team. That seems to be what passes for critical thinking these days.

All the 'claims' of the Armstrong defence have entered the mainstream talking
points and media interviews. How many times has the "500 tests" quotes
been repeated versus how many times has the claim been substantiated?

To me, it's a legal strategy to frame the debate around the process rather
than the evidence. One thing is clear, regardless of your position on a host
of issues raised in the case, in order for a legitimate process of "results
management" to take place, the evidence must be weighed in a manner
that it bears some form of public scrutiny. I think we agree there.

-g

[Mark McM]

To ensure we are all on the same figurative page, can someone please describe the "process" or provide a link to a site which describes the "process"? Otherwise we may be speaking of different concepts.

I'm pretty sure that Tony T, Aaron O, et al, who are claiming that due process rights are being violated have absolutely no idea what the process is, other than what they've read in the Armstrong propanda. Which makes me wonder how they can know (or even suspect) that there are due process issues.

When an athlete applies for a professional cycling license, they agree that they will be subject to USADA doping rules and procedures. As part of that, they agree that disputes will be resolved under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (http://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules?_afrLoop=92986648110168&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=y6jxz3486_1#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dy6jx z3486_1%26_afrLoop%3D92986648110168%26_afrWindowMo de%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Dy6jxz3486_42) (AAA).

[William]

http://www.usada.org/publications-policies





William

[PQJ]

To ensure we are all on the same figurative page, can someone please describe the "process" or provide a link to a site which describes the "process"? Otherwise we may be speaking of different concepts.

Lots of info here (http://www.usada.org/publications-policies). Knock yourself out. The "process" argument is a ruse, designed to obscure the fact that Dopestrong is guilty as sin. To a degree, it's working. I hope USADA's report to the UCI blows the whole thing open, and I also hope that the CA Senators' request for a review is granted since I think it would then legitimise the process that's been employed.

With that said, I'd be curious (genuinely so) to hear more about Aaron O's concerns.

[Aaron O]

I'm pretty sure that Tony T, Aaron O, et al, who are claiming that due process rights are being violated have absolutely no idea what the process is, other than what they've read in the Armstrong propanda. Which makes me wonder how they can know (or even suspect) that there are due process issues.

When an athlete applies for a professional cycling license, they agree that they will be subject to USADA doping rules and procedures. As part of that, they agree that disputes will be resolved under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (http://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules?_afrLoop=92986648110168&_afrWindowMode=0&_afrWindowId=y6jxz3486_1#%40%3F_afrWindowId%3Dy6jx z3486_1%26_afrLoop%3D92986648110168%26_afrWindowMo de%3D0%26_adf.ctrl-state%3Dy6jxz3486_42) (AAA).

I'm pretty sure that you've misrepresented, or misunderstood my position. I'm pretty sure that I've stated my argument is based on general distrust of agency law and a general trend for agencies like this to operate poorly and with minimal oversite. I'm also pretty sure I haven't claimed due process was violated, merely that there may be legitimate concerns, the judgement in Texas does not validate the appeals process of the USADA and that the senate might have a potentially legitimate interest in investigating an agency they authorize. I am not willing to just assume the process is fine and that Lance has no argument questioning process. I frankly don't know enough to have an opinion on USADA due process, I am commenting on the legitimacy of questioning them as an agency and appealing through the courts.

Nothing an athlete signs onto allows an agency to violate statute surrounding due process in quasi-agencies, nothing an athlete signs onto takes away an athlete's right to appeal via local/state/federal law and nothing states that the senate can't question an agency it authorizes.

[Aaron O]

Lots of info here (http://www.usada.org/publications-policies). Knock yourself out. The "process" argument is a ruse, designed to obscure the fact that Dopestrong is guilty as sin. To a degree, it's working. I hope USADA's report to the UCI blows the whole thing open, and I also hope that the CA Senators' request for a review is granted since I think it would then legitimise the process that's been employed.

With that said, I'd be curious (genuinely so) to hear more about Aaron O's concerns.

My concerns are based on dealing with agencies like this, both personally and as a part of my job, for a number of years and finding a general bureaucratic disrespect and lack of oversight or accountability in agencies like this. I am NOT a subject matter expert on these charges...the little I have read is that several athletes, including Armstrong, have been judged by an agency to be guilty without having ever failed a test and solely on the testimony of others.

Again - I'm not a guy reading blogs and updates about this ordeal. I am not a subject matter expert (as stated several times) on the USADA or this case.

[bikerboy337]

Several of you must be pretty upset that Drew Peterson was just convited of murder based on heresay and no physical evidence... they have no evidence linking him to the crime...

"the little I have read is that several athletes, including Armstrong, have been judged by an agency to be guilty without having ever failed a test and solely on the testimony of others. "

[Vientomas]

Thanks for the information. Now, if we are going to have a discussion about the process, why not cite the specific aspect of the process which you have concerns about?

[Aaron O]

Several of you must be pretty upset that Drew Peterson was just convited of murder based on heresay and no physical evidence... they have no evidence linking him to the crime...

"the little I have read is that several athletes, including Armstrong, have been judged by an agency to be guilty without having ever failed a test and solely on the testimony of others. "

I have a lot more faith in courts and juries then I do in agency law. I know even less about Drew Peterson than I do about the Lance case, so I certainly won't comment.

[goonster]

nothing states that the senate can't question an agency it authorizes.
I disagree with your assertion that USADA operates under congressional authority. They get funds from the gov't to promote fuzzy long-term values, but there are not a lot of strings attached to that, since they were not established by an act of congress, don't report to them, and don't operate under an anti-trust exemption (as MLB does).

Of course, anyone can be subpoenaed and hauled in to testify before a committee, but I don't see USADA as an "agency authorized by congress."

[Aaron O]

Thanks for the information. Now, if we are going to have a discussion about the process, why not cite the specific aspect of the process which you have concerns about?

Sure - I'll respond in the about 3 months it would take me to read, analyze and research cases related to that voluminous documentation ;)

Seems like a lot of work to make a case on the internet.

[Aaron O]

I disagree with your assertion that USADA operates under congressional authority. They get funds from the gov't to promote fuzzy long-term values, but there are not a lot of strings attached to that, since they were not established by an act of congress, don't report to them, and don't operate under an anti-trust exemption (as MLB does).

Of course, anyone can be subpoenaed and hauled in to testify before a committee, but I don't see USADA as an "agency authorized by congress."

Again, I'm not an expert...my (limited) understanding is that most of the USADA's authority rests on Congress appointing them the role of official Olympics/athletics drug policy regulators.

From wikipedia:

USADA is a signatory to, and responsible for implementation in the United States of, the World Anti-Doping Code, widely considered the basis for the strongest and strictest anti-doping programs in sports.[2][3] In 2001 the agency was recognized by the U.S. Congress as "the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American and Paralympic sport in the United States."[4] USADA is not a government entity, however the agency is partly funded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), with its remaining budget generated from contracts for anti-doping services with sport organizations, most notably the United States Olympic Committee.[5] The United States has also ratified the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, the first global international treaty against doping in sport.

The above seems to indicate regulatory authority derives from Congress ;)

[Mr. Squirrel]

"the little I have read is that several athletes, including Armstrong, have been judged by an agency to be guilty without having ever failed a test and solely on the testimony of others. "

she rides nice wheels.

mr. squirrel

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/5293832.stm

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/marion-jones-a-worldclass-cheat-394372.html

http://www.medpagetoday.com/AllergyImmunology/Allergy/17899

[goonster]

several athletes, including Armstrong, have been judged by an agency to be guilty without having ever failed a test and solely on the testimony of others.
They have been charged with misconduct.

If Lance had fought the charges at his hearing, had appealed to CAS and lost that too, then maybe he'd have a stronger argument about the process.

Since he has attacked the process, but voluntarily waived the opportunity to contest the charges within that process, his arguments lack credibility, imho.

(The attorney you cited earlier was able to bring his case in municipal court, because the agency wrongly blew him off in the appeal.)

[Aaron O]

They have been charged with misconduct.

If Lance had fought the charges at his hearing, had appealed to CAS and lost that too, then maybe he'd have a stronger argument about the process.

Since he has attacked the process, but voluntarily waived the opportunity to contest the charges within that process, his arguments lack credibility, imho.

(The attorney you cited earlier was able to bring his case in municipal court, because the agency wrongly blew him off in the appeal.)

I don't disagree - he'd have a much better case had he appealed through the agency and then challenged afterwards - which is how agency law typically works. I have no issue with his case being dismissed by the federal judge at the point it was dismissed. I'm not even directly saying I think there are due process violations on the part of the USADA. I'm saying that I'm glad the senate is looking based on what has, thus far, been exposed.

My concern is that agencies use that labyrinth process and often show too little accountability...which is why a senate inquiry doesn't offend me.

[Rueda Tropical]

None of this will matter when all the evidence comes out. Lances PR machine is sputtering but not yet dead - but it's going to be all over soon. All the investigations into the "over reach" of the USADA will be forgotten as all these concerned politicians quickly dump the disgraced doper overboard.

[Vientomas]

Sure - I'll respond in the about 3 months it would take me to read, analyze and research cases related to that voluminous documentation ;)

Seems like a lot of work to make a case on the internet.

So, if I understand, you have generalized concerns about a process you do not know the particulars of?

[Grant McLean]

So, if I understand, you have generalized concerns about a process you do not know the particulars of?

Aaron, like anyone, is entitled to question the process.
The rational response is to debate the particulars,
not attack the right of someone to be skeptical.

-g

[Aaron O]

So, if I understand, you have generalized concerns about a process you do not know the particulars of?

Read the arguments as I'm growing weary of both sarcasm and repeating myself. I believe I have spoken very directly.

[Vientomas]

I am attempting to get at the particulars. Apparently there are none to be found. What I glean is a general mistrust of government agencies. So be it, everyone is entitled their opinion.

My opinion is that there is no enabling legislation creating USADA, USADA is not an agency subject to the APA, and any Congressional "oversight" of USADA would only involve their grant funding provide by Congress.

https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=3d17e7d3c833e0cd0215deaef15cff52

[Aaron O]

I am attempting to get at the particulars.

I am interested in seeing the Senate taking a look at the particulars...actually what I would have preferred seeing is a Lance appeal of the USADA followed by an appropriate legal challenge.

To my knowledge the particulars of the actual evidence haven't been released and I agree with Goon's assertion that, at this point, a Lance due process challenge is premature.

I have by no means decided that the USADA is wrong...based on experience and the little I have seen here, I do see red flags and would welcome an appropriate body examining those particulars. I'm generally not into lynch mob justice - of LA OR the USADA.

Generally speaking, I have a lot more faith in governmental agencies and courts than I do in the legal process of quasi-agencies. I do trust the US court system and I'm certainly not an anti-government tin foil kinda' guy.

[Tony T]

I'm pretty sure that Tony T, Aaron O, et al, who are claiming that due process rights are being violated....

Did not claim that, my comment was that Judge Sparks said in his opinion that “USADA’s conduct raises serious concerns about whether its real interest in charging Armstrong is to combat doping, or if it is acting according to less noble motives.”

[Tony T]

Several of you must be pretty upset that Drew Peterson was just convited of murder based on heresay and no physical evidence... they have no evidence linking him to the crime..."

Just "heresy:, you sure about that? They should at least have had circumstantial evidence.

[Mark McM]

Just "heresy:, you sure about that?
^ ^^^^
I see what you did there!

[Tony T]

^ ^^^^
I see what you did there!

We're checking for typo's now? You got me, "heresy: s/b "heresay"

ok?

[PQJ]

So circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict someone of murder and to send them to jail but overwhelming circumstantial evidence of guilt (with some direct evidence, to boot) isn't sufficient to hold a pro cyclist accountable for the written agreement he signed? Talk about moral relativism!!! I hope Lance is compensating you well for this, Tony.

[Tony T]

I hope Lance is compensating you well for this, Tony.

The sad thing is, you're so deluded that you actually believe this to be true. :)

[Chance]

So, if I understand, you have generalized concerns about a process you do not know the particulars of?

Don’t we all have the right to be generally against something like a war without knowing the details? Why shouldn’t our core principles on the general values be enough to know that someone with more resources and knowledge than we have should investigate further?

Honestly, for me the fact that they are going back more than a few years is enough to question their motives. Most crimes, including many violent ones, which are more serious than racing a bike can’t be pursued after a reasonable time period. The fact that they can keep hounding any athlete 15 years after the fact seems absurd to me. Whether guilty or innocent doesn’t make a bit of difference to me. Not whatsoever. The principle of time is more important than anything LA did. That doesn’t mean he’s innocent. Just that we shouldn’t be able to go back an indefinite time limit. Individuals just don’t have the resources to defend themselves over that long a period. Maybe LA does because of his wealth, but what will happen when the same set of rules are used against an average athlete without the cash to hire the best lawyers?

The entire process (beyond legal “particulars”) seems crazy to me.

[PQJ]

The sad thing is, you're so deluded that you actually believe this to be true. :)

One of us is certainly delusional. It aint me.

How come you don't ever answer the tough questions?

[Tony T]

One of us is certainly delusional. It aint me.

Then you really believe that I'm being paid by Armstrong ("I hope Lance is compensating you well for this, Tony"). I would ask what proof you have, but if course, as long as you believe it to be true, it is. Sure, you're not delusional. Sad.

[PQJ]

Then you really believe that I'm being paid by Armstrong ("I hope Lance is compensating you well for this, Tony"). I would ask what proof you have, but if course, as long as you believe it to be true, it is. Sure, you're not delusional. Sad.

I wouldn't be surprised were I to learn that Team Dopestrong has paid shills fomenting doubt all across the interwebs. And given your robust defense of him, I wouldn't be surprised if you're one of them.

How come you don't answer the tough questions Tony?

[Tony T]

Yes, we already know of your delusion that I'm paid by Armstrong, now you're just repeating yourself.
And your proof is my defense of him?
Sure, that's not delusional :)

And your attacks on me, and your sarcastic comments ("Team Dopestrong") are not really helping your case.
Unless, of course, your real purpose is to close this thread, and in that, it seems that you will be successful.

[Rada]

I am attempting to get at the particulars. Apparently there are none to be found. What I glean is a general mistrust of government agencies. So be it, everyone is entitled their opinion.

My opinion is that there is no enabling legislation creating USADA, USADA is not an agency subject to the APA, and any Congressional "oversight" of USADA would only involve their grant funding provide by Congress.

https://www.cfda.gov/?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=3d17e7d3c833e0cd0215deaef15cff52

If you think Congress has no influence with the USADA you are being naive.

[Flying Pigeon]

I am nowhere near as well-informed, so a quick question.

Was the evidence from the Novitsky investigation passed on to USADA? Would it show up in future arbitration hearings with Bruyneel et al?

It seems like the subpoenas and financial records are where the interesting stuff is, more so than how many picograms in the peepee..

[goonster]

Was the evidence from the Novitsky investigation passed on to USADA? Would it show up in future arbitration hearings with Bruyneel et al?
This is still unclear. Neither USADA nor Novitzky & Co. have commented on this.

It has been widely speculated that Novitzky turned his file over to USADA, and that this forms the foundation of their charges, but we just don't know yet. It is also possible (and plausible) that USADA built an independent case, and simply waited for the federal probe to conclude before going public.

[PQJ]

Yes, we already know of your delusion that I'm paid by Armstrong, now you're just repeating yourself.
And your proof is my defense of him?
Sure, that's not delusional :)

And your attacks on me, and your sarcastic comments ("Team Dopestrong") are not really helping your case.
Unless, of course, your real purpose is to close this thread, and in that, it seems that you will be successful.

The suggestion that you might be a paid shill seems to have struck a nerve. Interesting.

I've not attacked you at all. Which is more than I can say for your ad hominem attacks on me (not that I care; no sense getting upset by an anonymous and ill informed guy on the Internet).

Why is it that you won't answer the (tougher) questions I've asked? Could it be that you can't?

[Tony T]

I've not attacked you at all.

Making unfounded, untrue accusations are an attack, however, you operate in your own little world (filled with repetitions), so I wouldn't expect you to even know what you were doing was wrong, so do me a favor and stop being a bug to me.

....you are now on ignore.:butt:

[G-Reg]

I am nowhere near as well-informed, so a quick question.

Was the evidence from the Novitsky investigation passed on to USADA? Would it show up in future arbitration hearings with Bruyneel et al?

It seems like the subpoenas and financial records are where the interesting stuff is, more so than how many picograms in the peepee..

I don't care how they got it but I'm glad they are using it.

[G-Reg]

the suggestion that you might be a paid shill seems to have struck a nerve. Interesting.

I've not attacked you at all. Which is more than i can say for your ad hominem attacks on me (not that i care; no sense getting upset by an anonymous and ill informed guy on the internet).

Why is it that you won't answer the (tougher) questions i've asked? Could it be that you can't?

+1

[PQJ]

If you think LA has shills hanging out on Podunk cycling forums to argue with the likes of you, you greatly over estimate other opinions of yours.

Funny, I was thinking you might be one too.

[William]

Play nicely. Last warning.





William

[BBB]

I disagree...I have serious concerns about that process after what I've read. Am I an expert? No...not at all. The integrity of the process is also a lot more important to me than the guilt of one person, even one as important as LA. In other words...just because someone is guilty doesn't mean you get to torture them. I am more afraid of agency law violations than I am of the impact LA cheating will have on the world.

Without lawyers working for their clients interests and challenging process, there would be even less of a check on overreach. It's sad that it takes a LA to challenge the system, but I'm glad it's being challenged and...based on what I've read (and am not an expert)...I have concerns.

The process is fine. Is it perfect? Probably not. Then again, neither is a court.

I think there is a lot of smoke and mirrors in relation to this concept of 'due process'. I seem to recall Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis making a similar song and dance too.

The USADA made a decision to investigate Armstrong and others and based on that investigation they elected to charge him (and the others) with various breaches of the WADA code.

Armstrong had to elect whether to accept the charges or contest them through a procedure agreed to by him. This procedure is not controlled by the USADA in the sense that they do not act as prosecutor, judge and executioner, rather it is overseen by an independent arbitration body. Typically three arbitrators hear the case; one chosen by the USADA, one chosen by person subject to the charges and the third chosen by the initial two arbitrators.

The matter proceeds to hearing. This is where the 'due process' argument falls down as typically in arbitrations there are exchanges of documents, evidence, examination and cross-examination of witnesses and so forth. Remember Tyler Hamilton's case? There were all sorts of adjournments granted so Hamilton could assemble his scientific evidence, so his lawyers could examine documents in Greece and so forth. He was given all the time in the world to present his case and chase every rabbit down every burrow.

Of course it may not have proceeded to hearing as Armstrong had the ability to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel. The UCI, who were seemingly in cahoots with Armstrong, could have been a party to this challenge. The arbitrators would then be required to make a ruling on this point based on submissions (probably written and oral) by the parties. There is a right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and a further limited right of review in a Federal Court in Switzerland.

Putting this matter aside, assuming the matter proceeded to hearing and based on a standard of proof that is greater than the balance of probabilities (ie 51%), but less than beyond a reasonable doubt, a majority of the arbitrators find Armstrong guilty of one or more of the charges, then, as outlined above, Armstrong has a right of appeal before CAS. That appeal, effectively a re-hearing, proceeds before three arbitrators chosen from a global panel. Again, the standard of proof required is as set out above. There is a further limited right of appeal to the Federal Court in Switzerland.

It was easy to attack the process and create a stigma in the public's mind, when in reality there are an whole raft of checks and balances built into the system. Armstrong would have gotten a fair trial and given the publicity involved the arbitration panel would have been acutely concious of due process or procedural fairness.

[bozman]

Because California is facing massive and substantive problems, and politicians don't like to run on actually solving problems. They'd rather distract and obfuscate.

Agree whole-heartedly.

[Aaron O]

The process is fine. Is it perfect? Probably not. Then again, neither is a court.

I think there is a lot of smoke and mirrors in relation to this concept of 'due process'. I seem to recall Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis making a similar song and dance too.

The USADA made a decision to investigate Armstrong and others and based on that investigation they elected to charge him (and the others) with various breaches of the WADA code.

Armstrong had to elect whether to accept the charges or contest them through a procedure agreed to by him. This procedure is not controlled by the USADA in the sense that they do not act as prosecutor, judge and executioner, rather it is overseen by an independent arbitration body. Typically three arbitrators hear the case; one chosen by the USADA, one chosen by person subject to the charges and the third chosen by the initial two arbitrators.

The matter proceeds to hearing. This is where the 'due process' argument falls down as typically in arbitrations there are exchanges of documents, evidence, examination and cross-examination of witnesses and so forth. Remember Tyler Hamilton's case? There were all sorts of adjournments granted so Hamilton could assemble his scientific evidence, so his lawyers could examine documents in Greece and so forth. He was given all the time in the world to present his case and chase every rabbit down every burrow.

Of course it may not have proceeded to hearing as Armstrong had the ability to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel. The UCI, who were seemingly in cahoots with Armstrong, could have been a party to this challenge. The arbitrators would then be required to make a ruling on this point based on submissions (probably written and oral) by the parties. There is a right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and a further limited right of review in a Federal Court in Switzerland.

Putting this matter aside, assuming the matter proceeded to hearing and based on a standard of proof that is greater than the balance of probabilities (ie 51%), but less than beyond a reasonable doubt, a majority of the arbitrators find Armstrong guilty of one or more of the charges, then, as outlined above, Armstrong has a right of appeal before CAS. That appeal, effectively a re-hearing, proceeds before three arbitrators chosen from a global panel. Again, the standard of proof required is as set out above. There is a further limited right of appeal to the Federal Court in Switzerland.

It was easy to attack the process and create a stigma in the public's mind, when in reality there are an whole raft of checks and balances built into the system. Armstrong would have gotten a fair trial and given the publicity involved the arbitration panel would have been acutely concious of due process or procedural fairness.

That doesn't address, to me, possible over reach in the investigation. Do I feel a lot more comfortable with arbitration? Absolutely and am glad to hear that's how that piece works.

[slidey]

I can positively state that I've had enough of dopestrong threads, well for a couple of days at least :cool:

[merlincustom1]

That doesn't address, to me, possible over reach in the investigation. Do I feel a lot more comfortable with arbitration? Absolutely and am glad to hear that's how that piece works.

It seems to me that the only possible USADA overreach is in trying to extend the 8 year statute of limitations. This blog addresses how USADA might have gone about it had LA not folded the tent:

http://somerandomthursday.blogspot.com/2012/06/lance-and-law-part-2-statutes-of.html#!/2012/06/lance-and-law-part-2-statutes-of.html

Tygart conceded that it was possible that Lance could have kept 5 Tour wins had he engaged in the process, which seems a tacit admission that maybe USADA thought that their argument to toll the limitations period wasn't going to carry the day. I imagine they'd have focused on the 2001 Swiss EPO positive cover-up evidence as proof of fraudulent concealment. But since Lance bailed, he lost by default, and the outcome is deemed admitted. It's similar to me suing you for a million bucks. Maybe you owed it, maybe you didn't, but you don't contest it so I take a default judgment against you. You don't move to lift the default, so it becomes final. I can then legally take steps to collect a million from you.