Why Lance Armstrong stopped fighting the doping charges
Eric Dezenhall is the CEO of Dezenhall Resources, Ltd. , a crisis management firm.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Caller.
#1 Aug 27, 2012
If you think ICU should stick with the results of its own and the US federal government's extensive investigations rather than the USADA's compilation of purchased hearsay, sign this petition: http://bit.ly/ICU_Armstrong . It only takes a second.
Next, please share it with friends who also think allowing organizations to destroy people without actual proof of wrongdoing is not okay.
Since 1973, over 140 people in the USA have been freed from DEATH ROW thanks to DNA. Most of them were convicted on eyewitness testimony because a prosecutor was convinced the suspect was guilty even in the absence of real evidence.
#2 Aug 27, 2012
One must wonder if Lance stopped fighting because the testimony might not only find him guilty of doping but the sale or distribution of illegal substances ie low level drug dealing. If any of this happend on US soil he would be subject to local drug dealing laws wether it's meds without a script or trafficing in banned/illegal substances.
To me this is where congress messed in baseball by just worrying about 'the truth' of steroids in baseball. They should've turned their grand standing into an illegal drug dealing investigation.
People must realize banned substances are NOT just about cheating but as much about illegal drug dealing & distribution. If you or I were caught with alot of those substances it would illegal possession This is why the trainers in baseball keep their traps shut when supoenaed because it's not just about loyalty but keeping their butts out of jail.
#3 Sep 18, 2012
You are encouraging the perpetuation of a self obsessed, delusional, psychotic man. Who is part of the reason why one of the hardest, greatest and amazing sports has wallowed in a cesspit of murky underground cheating for many decades. He is far from being the sole problem, and as 11 of his ex colleagues have confessed to doping themselves, and being part of lances doping club. It is obvious that the problem runs very deep in cycling.
To combat this problem and attempt to eliminate this sorry state of affairs to the past, new and revolutionary attempts to rid doping from this sport are required. It is obvious that existing enforcement and regulations have failed miserably in preventing this cheating to occur.
I understand and accept your concern about eyewitness accounts sending people to death row in the USA. And am relieved to hear that DNA science has assisted in removing some possibly innocent people from this draconian, absurd and stone age punishment. But please do not sensationalize Lance's situation with such exaggerated comparisons. Such talk leaves many cycling fans like my self exasperated with the absurdity of such comparisons. I know you do it only as a reference point to past mistakes and will argue that you are highlighting the potential wrongs that Lance faces. Yet it is ridiculous to compare LA's situation to being on death row.
Ok, returning to my original point of new and revolutionary attempts to rid doping from this sport being required. Anti doping agency's from around the world have for a long time known that they are always "chasing" and are never ahead in the game they play to stop such cheating. One of the biggest obstacles they have faced has been jurisdiction and the legality of enforcing controls across borders so that all are on the same playing field. Unsurprisingly with all the worlds legal systems, and high payed lawyers available to high earning sports-persons, they have often been torn to pieces when attempting to enforce and adhere to their own regulations in courts of law. Which again "unsurprisingly" has led to different sports governing body's; asked to sign up to rules and regulations that both the sports governing body's and anti-doping agency's accept (which is why they sign up) that they may not have stood up in a court of law.
(i hope this is making sense to you, i will not highlight all the oddities and differences these problems have caused. But leave it to you to think it through and draw the obvious conclusions)
This has been a slow evolutionary process with the anti-doping agency's catching up and drawing level in some sports with the dopers methods of staying ahead and avoiding being caught. Cycling unfortunately has been one of the slower sports to achieve much success in this ( arguably caused by the uci and other governing bodies, both national and international)
Ok, if i define all this to you i will be writing for another 6 hours, so i hope you get it and understand as i am not gonna waste 6 hours of my time on this.(also i hope you can see that i love cycling and the it is part of my life, so i am passionate about helping it prosper, and i know LA has done a lot of good for cycling and it would not be where it is without him)
#5 Sep 18, 2012
Oh , quickly before i go. The whole issue of eye witness account again. One eye witness can be said to be weak and unreliable. 2 can be bought ect. 3 if they are brothers, maybe their accounts will help each other. 4 independent/separate accounts, don't look goood for the accused. 5, maybe its a conspiracy. 6 its gotta be
al-Qaeda . 7, this is just getting stupid. Hope you get the picture, as we could of gone all the way up to 17 different witnesses all trying to screw LA cos they gotta book deal or they are jealous or they are just delusional. Hhhmmm unless there was a one night mass alien abduction of cyclists, their partners and co workers! someone sure is being delusional!! and i take no satisfaction from knowing that. Because LA did do wonders on and off the bike.
Finally - sorry if this has been a little all over the place - just done a solid 49 hours working with no rest so head is a little fried. Hope it makes sense to you.
#6 Sep 18, 2012
turtle a very good post although I would say your personal view of LA is a bit over the top.
Your view on death row to this matter is spot on and should not be reference point as the comparison of evidence is not the same.
I am also a huge cycling fan and see LA as having the biggest modern cycling era influence on the sport although to me EM shall always be the King for what he did but also how he did it. Peter sagan is being touted as the new EM but so far I am not seeing it and he only won the Green jersey becaus SKY did not ride for Cav.
On LA the evidence, how it was secured is important as it need to be solid and so far all we have heard is eye witnesses and no physical proof tabled. It has been stated by USADA they have blood samples to show PED use but the source of the samples and the science behind their tests have not been confirmed and this needs to be examined very carefully or we shall end up with another Stephen Roche situation and David Walsh situation.
For anyone unfamiliar Walsh wrote for Roche then accused him of taking PED's that he refuses to recind even with scientists advising the seconday use of blood samples do not give acurate readings as they have already been used for testing and mass secondary sample testing proved this and was reported which created A and B sample testing.
Walsh has a history of making sensationalist comments and not backing down when it is shown he is wrong such as with Roche. If LA is aquitted Walsh will still say he was right all the time its his style.
On LA matters the consequences of accepting USADA approach has far to big an impact on Sport in general and would end up with anything from individuals to a whole country accusing an athlete of cheating and ends up with 'i have more witnesses than you' winning.
LA entered USP who were already engaged in doping according to Hamilton so its not his culture but unfortunately it was a culture that affected ALL cycling. Even if he is guilty his punishment should be no more than anyone else who has been found guilty by accusation or admission. You cannot be judge jury and executioner for the same reason we have laws to protect our rights.
Another point people need to consider is the acts of any organisation who are able to work outwith the Law such as USADA can still be held accountable in a court of law for their actions against someone they have taken action against. If they restrict their civil liberties or ability to function properly in society or earn a living.
In USADA their weakness may end up being a government body who has to abide by a strict ethical code and they appear not to be doing this just now and if the case is so good release it and we can see. It looks like they are still threading the evidence together to reflect the case. The longer this takes the worse it looks.
Another point to note is the PED testing regime is so far behind those involved in it its a joke and that was a comment from the Olympic DR in charge of testing at the Olympics this year. He stated only achieving 4 positive tests demonstrates this.
A final point worth considering in this matter is what if we find out later that the witnesses who have lied under oath and now say their testimony under oath is correct this time say later its not or if the same happens in reverse for LA or any other athlete.
As I said before the smart move was getting LA involved with USADA and scare everyone out there. That I dont see as Tygart OM however as it appears to me he wants to be THE MAN no matter what.
I predict we wont see him in 1 year as LA has friends a lot more powerful than him.
#7 Sep 18, 2012
yep , my opening sentence was a bit warped and unfair to an innocent until proven guilty man. I rescind most of it. Just got a bit carried away killing trolls and maybe i did not leave all my anger in the game. Apart from that i would like to reply coherently to your post but am way to tired right now. Just one point - EM cheated as well - which says it all really for our sport. Big clean new broom is required, it needs tearing down before we can build a safe landscape for future cyclists to ride on. goodnight
#8 Sep 20, 2012
turtle i sent a link to LA court ruling on other post.
I agree about a clean up but dont see it happening with PED's indemic in Sport as a whole and when that happens and sponsors are getting bigger returns are needed.
All you need to do is look at where the next 2 world cups are going to tell you all you need to know if the administration of Sport also has issues of transparency and for me this will also affect the Anti-doping Agencies who are not immune to the challenges of opportunity of greed.
#9 Sep 20, 2012
try the link from here if you wish.
it has a psf for the full document plus some observation commentary which may help/hinder understanding of the details in the Judges summary.
Its a real hard read but worth it as it shows the deficiencies from both sides.
It is also interesting that the rulings are left open ended to allow them to be picked up again by LA Team should they wish to.
#10 Sep 22, 2012
Can not tell you anything about what hincappie has to say about lance. Unfortunately lance giving up the fight and running from the truth's which would have come out during arbitration, have left us without lots of the evidence proving he cheated and lied. Including the testimony and evidence from his good old cheating pal, George.
It is a real shame that this has occurred but hopefully people will come to see Lance's soundbite and bullying technique of defense for what it is without good old george. I think at the moment with lance, most people are in grief. "He turned out not to be the household saint he was held up to be for more than ten years. They are going through the five stages of mourning. First we have shock and denial (I can't believe he dropped his defense!), then anger (the USADA is after him!), now quickly into bargaining (So what? Everyone else cheated too!) Depression and acceptance will take a bit longer, but I think those who are fastidiously defending him will soon go silent and the national consciousness will be to bury his memory far deep in the back of the mind" Well that's my hope anyway.
We are not talkinng about a little known domestique in the team participating in any cycle race. This man has used fraudulent means to become what he is now with all the social (and eventually political) prestige that ensued. he even abused this to harrass and intimidate those who stood up to him. This is a totally unprincipled exploitation of other peoples' trust and confidence while implicating those who willingly aided and abetted this massive sporting hoax. Furthermore, he was not content with one or two or even three TdF titles but 7 and the hope to make a comeback and continue where he left off. This is just sheer arrogance.
#11 Sep 24, 2012
I read your comments about his fact and conjecture and you are going down the conjecture road with your last post.
Truth coming out in arbitration?
Running away from the truth?
Different stages of denial?
Fraudulent means to become what he is today?
Harrass and intimidate?
All points above currently have no basis in fact, they can only be opinion at best just now. Just now we can all look and say what we feel and if it is a fact its there as an agreed part of the record but most of what is written is not.
People can say what they wish but proving it is something else and we all still wait on USADA evidence to be released. It should have been issued with the charge sheet but wasnt, it should have been issued to Judge Sparks but it was not and it should have been issued to all interested parties but hasnt. Despite this USADA decided without issuing a shred of evidence to strip LA which cannot be right.
If everything they have is correct then why not just issue it and have this issue put to bed once and for all.
The next part of the issue comes when USADA issue their Report and it all starts again.
I do not think anyone would endorse the accusation and judgement on anyone accused of a crime in whatever guise it is presented without evidence.
NO ONE here, at WADA, UCI, IOC, US Cycling, US Olympic Board know any more than all of us here.
People should also take time to read USADA own code and see how they have acted outwith their brief.
Article 25.2 allows for 'lex mitior' and the ruling of the substantive anti doping rules in effect at the time for alleged doping. It means LA is entitled to benefit from the rules in place at the time and apportioned sanctions fitting of any lesser charges. The only way around this is by a Panel Hearing rule on lex mitior and that Panel Hearing as we all know did not take place.
Article 25.1 states the effective date for 25.2 is January 1 1999 and has an 8 year statute of limitation on the charges.
25.3 also highlights that any snactions prior to the active dates and time noted above must be taken by the organisation who held management responsibility for the results. It aslo sattes the Code has no rights for violations after the ineligibility date.
There are obviously many more clauses for this Code and can be found at ,
As I have said before, did he dope? yes I believe he did. Did it make him so much better than the rest? NO he was on the same playing field as the rest and take it all way from them he would have still been the best. It has been said before you dont just make a thoroughbred from a donkey you need to an elite athlete to begin with.
If he cheated why am I unhappy at whats going on? Because it is simply wrong to chase an athlete who retired a long time ago in this way and ignore all your won rules in the process.
Another point to note is USADA received FDA case files including Federal testimony that by law is not allowed to be released but USADA have it and are using it.
Maybe LA is crapping himself or maybe he is smarter than we see and the way the case has been compiled will be as culpable for investigation as the FDA seen LA was for fraud. Its all Government money and must be spent wisely!
The cost to chase LA is far in excess of what he earned on a bike and is still rising. You also must ask the question whilst USADA throw all their resources and money at LA WHO ARE THE MISSING JUST NOW?
How can USADA accuse LA of cheating when they are also doing it!
#12 Sep 30, 2012
~~~ USADA received FDA case files including Federal testimony that by law is not allowed to be released but USADA have it and are using it.~~~
This has been refuted in article after article, the newest being David Walsh's today (Sun, 9/30) in the UK Times. USADA got nothing from the Feds. Fortunately, a Justice Official sat in on USADA's interviews with the witnesses and confirmed they were telling USADA what they told the Feds.
#13 Sep 30, 2012
In America it is how much justice can you afford, instead of justice for all. A rich man like himself could afford to clear himself if he was indeed innocent. Choosing to stop fighting is basically an admission of guilt.
#14 Oct 1, 2012
Cam, you are referring to articles after articles to make your point. Can I ask you also if there have not been as many articles after articles that say Armstrong didnít dope? So which ones are right?
You also do not appear to know that Tygart was present during the Federal Fraud Investigation secret testimonies compiled as part of their Investigation into Armstrong!
The presence of the Federal Investigator has no relevance as the case was dropped. This is a red herring and is USADA trying to align them to the Federal evidence and avoid being investigated themselves. If a witness did say anything different all they can do is recall them and ask what they have said and why and the witness can do this without charge and say exactly what they said under oath.
USADA have no Federal powers and cannot have any testimony taken under oath unless it has been requested via the Courts, the Feds donít work for USADA and unable to offer assistance - or so that is what the law says.
Perhaps you and many others here need to think a bit more about citing a Federal Investigator being present having a credible part of USADA case. The point I address in this is all Government Depts. must be careful how they align themselves to organisations seen as 'private' as this can be used against them when investigating any other organisations/people etc. Itís not just a one off and everyone will not notice, it can have serious ramifications in all walks of life the Feds are involved in!
It also doesnít appear to disturb you that USADA are sharing time and commentary on a case file not issued to UCI/IOC/WADA/Armstrong.
They are doing what is currently being discussed as an issue by Senators and other Congress that WADA/USADA are over stepping their mark and trying to circumvent US Constitutional Rights. Read Judge Sparks comments on USADA motives and Senators open letter on the matter.
If you feel itís OK to share this before proving your point especially when you decide to share it with Press that have a long standing and open Vendetta against Armstrong, is that an action of a credible organisation or smack of sensationalist approach better suited to newspapers and 'Spin Doctors' in Politics?
Not my idea of a semi quasi government body who have over 3/4 of their funding from Government.
Cam you are entitled to feel USADA donít have Feds evidence and use a Journalist comments to validate this as acceptable. I know Tygart was present at the Feds testimony because he has admitted it and he now MUST find a plausible way to have it incorporated to USADA evidence or he/they face criminal charges.
I would say if you believe they donít have Feds evidence you are being extremely naive, but you are entitled to your opinion.
I would close by noting that points you make here are the opposite of others you make in another thread which may be innocent or deliberate!
#15 Oct 1, 2012
No article says Lance didn't dope because nobody can make that claim. Sorry, Armstrong's best buddy at the UCI Hein Verbruggen made that claim, but nobody in reality could. The most they could claim is that Armstrong hadn't failed a test.
I do happen to know that Tygart was present at interviews conducted between the Feds and some of the witnesses at the witnesses request. And yet USADA still didn't receive evidence from the Feds. USADA had to do their own investigation from the ground up and this has been confirmed by numerous sources.
The Justice Department official being present for both is more than relevant since he can confirm what the witnesses said under oath to the Feds. Contrary to your assertion, the Feds can open perjury charges if the witnesses tell USADA something different.
It's quite legal for people to sit in on witness interviews conducted during federal investigations. USADA did not get access to grand jury testimony.
As I said in the other topic, this is not a criminal matter or grand jury testimony and thus there is nothing wrong with USADA talking about it. Armstrong's case was over when he refused to contest. The dossier being compiled doesn't change that in any way.
The Senators who opined on this are fools. Every assertion they made about USADA is false. All three of their supposed improvements to USADA's protocols are already covered in USADA's protocols. The problem is they did nothing but listen to Armstrong and his lawyers, and those folks have been lying since the outset.
#16 Oct 1, 2012
Cam I agree that no one can say he never doped but also you cannot say he did, we all await the evidence from USADA.
On failed tests you appear to be unaware of the full history in this case which I suggest you take time to read, well past 2010! There is a great argument there for everyone on both sides of the fence.
My own view on the matter is posted many times so no need to go back there, although from reading your posts Cam I donít think you know them just yet!
USADA and Federal evidence is as simple as USADA Tygart stating he expected to receive Federal testimony and then told you canít say that as it would be Criminal Offence to receive it so he back tracked.
He also had no legal right to be attending the Secret hearings as well which has been raised as an issue.
Would Bill gates be invited to attend a Fraud Hearing on Software? NO so why was he there? It may seem a loose statement but before making assumptions go and check out what Legal Standing Tygart has to attend a Federal Witness statement under oath for a trial that has not be agreed, then check if Bill Gates has the same standing in Law..You may see my point then.
You cannot say Hein is Lance's best buddy as you actually donít know that. You may in fact be his best buddy for all we know!
The Justice Officer being present has NO relevance at all as the testimony was not under oath. They can retract it and go back to the Federal one anytime. Its USADA way of aligning to a Legal stance whilst they wish to ignore other Constitutional issues, what a tangled web is being weaved I think.
I can claim under oath I never killed you and then say openly I did then under oath say I actually didnít I was stressed at the time. Do you get it?
It is also NOT normal OR Legal for anyone to sit in on Federal Testimony under oath when a case has NOT been called, thatís why it was taken in SECRET, and the clue is in the capital words...SECRET.
I will challenge you to call the FBI and explain that you wish to attend a witness testimony under oath for a case not sanctioned for trial, let me know how you get on!!!!!!!!!!
Talking to press on the matter refer to other post where I await your considered reply with interest.
You also appear to think that USADA have closed the case under the Code and I refer you again to the other thread where it has been explained again to you and I look forward to your reply.
I can agree that my opinion is that most Senators are fools; Billy Connolly said it best that 'anyone who has the ambition to be a politician should be banned for life from entering politics'! Spot on.
Your argument however also assumes in fairness that those Senators who are opposed to Armstrong are also fools, which I again wouldnít disagree with. You cannot make sweeping statements however to suit your argument as you are doing. You must prove they are or are not fools.
You also need to show how and when Armstrong Team has been lying. Try doing it on TV and see if he sends you a thank you note or a writ!
I look forward to your next post here and elsewhere but please do some research and use facts and/or reasoned argument to debate and not assumptions. Also look at what you write and keep contradictions out of it.
#17 Oct 1, 2012
Let's get something straight. I am not a rookie on this issue. I have followed cycling and Armstrong closely since 2003. I know what the history is, and there is more than enough out there to come to the conclusion that Armstrong was a doper.
Tygart has said for months that they received no grand jury testimony and nobody from the DOJ has publicly contradicted this. If you don't want to believe this, so be it. Also, there were no "secret hearings." The Feds interview potential witnesses when they begin an investigation and Tygart was asked to sit in on them. Interviews, not federal testimony. Please note the difference.
~~The Justice Officer being present has NO relevance at all as the testimony was not under oath.~~
Incorrect. The DOJ officer sat in during USADA's interviews of witnesses with transcripts of the interviews the witnesses gave the Grand Jury or the Feds. If the witnesses give differing accounts to USADA than what they gave the Feds under oath, they open themselves to perjury charges.
USADA's case against Armstrong is closed. The only body that can open it now is the CAS if it gets appealed.
Armstrong and Verbruggen are long-time friends. They reportedly attempted to buy the ProTour together. LA has Verbruggen's personal number on his cell phone and called him by "Hein" in conversation according to more than one witness. Verbruggen last year claimed Armstrong had "never, never" doped.
~~You must prove they are or are not fools.~~
Well no I mustn't, but I will anyway.
Sensenbrenner claimed LA hadn't received basic due process. This despite a federal judge ruling USADA provided "robust" due process while canning LA's lawsuit. Also, they call for the athlete to be served with specific charges and given a "reasonable" time to prepare a defense and a full and fair hearing, all things USADA already provides.
Armstrong's lawyers pretended that he was entitled to the evidence prior to agreeing to a hearing and that he would not receive the evidence or know the witnesses prior to arbitration. Those are lies.
Please do your own research and fact-checking before telling other to do so.
#19 Oct 1, 2012
Cam, I have lots of numbers in my phone and call them by first names but they are not my best buddies! More nonsense to suit your own comments, but no facts. Just say friends but NO you got to over state it to sensationalise it!!
Judge Sam Sparks comments have been raised on here before like you have done. Go and read what he actually said and wrote as well as the Senators before trying to say he canned LA team. He canned them all and raised serious concerns about USADA charge sheet saying it had no foundation and would not stand in a court of law as well as raising serious Constitutional concerns how USADA have compiled the evidence. He thrashed Armstrong team first submission as a marketing ploy but thrashed USADA in his summing up.
Try reading it Cam before making more nonsense up to suit your comments. For every comment you make against LA by Judge Sparks there is at least one for USADA and there are serious and causing the Senate to ask what the hell is going on.
But as you are not a rookie you already know this but decided to ignore it? Why let facts get in the way of your opinion!
Judge Sparks said he doubted Armstrong would receive a fair hearingÖÖ.Iím not going to educate you Cam go and read the actual ruling like the rest of us have and stop cheery picking to make up something we have all done to death.
Try and not be a stranger to the truth and when you see facts try and make a reasoned argument if you disagree with them.
You also say Armstrong lawyers lied about not receiving the evidence before hearing, thatís correct not a lie as you suggest. They also stated that they were not allowed to cross examine witnesses on their statements and USADA refuted this but when pushed on the matter confirmed LA Lawyers would only be allowed access to witnesses they called and if they didnít the evidence could be cross examined but would taken into the findings as facts. Judge Sparks condemned this which led to his comments he didnít believe Armstrong would receive a fair and constitutional hearing.
You appear to be deluded in this matter Cam and donít realise that if USADA donít call any witnesses there is no one to cross examine and this is the whole issue LA Lawyers have and why he has stated the system is fixed.
I know from what you have posted you donít know this is the process and calling a lawyer a liar is not a smart move in any walk of life and in this case they were in fact correct and the evidence is presented at the hearing not before.
You also keep saying Armstrong case is now closed which shows you donít understand the process at all. Itís not closed because those who are responsible for the Management of a Sport must see the reasoned judgement and agree to uphold any sanctions given. You donít know this because you donít research facts at all.
CAS are the only people who can re-open the CAS is also utter nonsense and shows you are not a 2003 Cycling follower otherwise you would know all about 2006 UCI v WADA and you donít. Read about it and maybe you will see a bit more about what can and does happen and why I have said it goes well before 2010 with Armstrong, UCI, WADA. You are just someone who knows what you have seen recently and decided to give an opinion and donít look into facts or try and see what you are saying has any credence.
#21 Oct 2, 2012
Blow off the use of Verbruggen's first name but ignore everything else. Good job.
Contrary to your increasingly arrogant assertions, I have read Spark's decision.
~~Judge Sparks said he doubted Armstrong would receive a fair hearing~~
The judge said whether or not he would get a fair hearing was a question that remained to be answered.
~~You also say Armstrong lawyers lied about not receiving the evidence before hearing, thatís correct not a lie as you suggest.~~
No it is not correct. You are either misinformed or are as big a liar as Team Armstrong. There was no arbitration hearing because Armstrong never agreed to one. Had he agreed to one he would've been given access to all the evidence as per USADA's protocols. This part of the process never took place. Do you not understand that, Geeman?
~~~ and donít realise that if USADA donít call any witnesses there is no one to cross examine~~~
If you think USADA didn't want to call witnesses you are flat delusional.
~~and the evidence is presented at the hearing not before.~~
Once again the person who continues to claim to know everything is wrong about something. Evidence exchange takes place no fewer than five days prior to the hearing as per American Arbitration Association rules.
~~Itís not closed because those who are responsible for the Management of a Sport must see the reasoned judgement and agree to uphold any sanctions given.~~
The process is over unless there is an appeal to CAS as I stated previously and the UCI has already said an appeal is unlikely.
To paraphrase you, you are someone who doesn't know half as much as he thinks he does.
North Shields, UK
#22 Oct 2, 2012
Cam, extracts from Judge Sparks summing up.
ďAmong the courtís concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after the alleged doping violations occurred,Ē Sparks said.ďUnfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations creates doubt the charges against Armstrong would receive fair consideration in either forum.Ē
Sparks said USADA has consolidated Armstrongís case with those of several other alleged offenders over whom U.S. cycling authorities have no authority. Armstrong alleged USADA has promised lesser sanctions against other riders in exchange for their testimony against him.
If true,ďit is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligationsĒ to international cycling rules, Sparks said.
Yet courts shouldnít get involved in the matter, Sparks said, ruling that the arbitration panel should sort out which cycling federation has ultimate authority over the doping allegations. He said that if Armstrong doesnít receive advance notice of the details of the allegations against him ďand it is brought to this courtís attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result.Ē
The Judges conmments to say he doubted Armstrong would get a fair trial in either forum at USADA or UCI.
He instruct USADA to release evidence as USADA stated they would not to safe guard witness protection and tells them if they dont they will not like what he does to them.
He clearly states they have no jurisdiction of non-US people NOT what you said.
Your belief that USADA are doing everything correctly is so dellusional it beggers belief.
When was the Lex Mitior hearing? Who was present? Didi they inform Armstrong and his Legal Team?
All should have happened but didnt and its in their rules.
The case IS NOT closed how thick can you be as Article 8.3 requires USADA to issue their resoned argument for sanctions to seek approval of sanctions from the Management Organisation of Titles...UCI and IOC. YES IOC whom you have no idea stated, when asked about the case, on the day USADA sanctioned Armstrong that they were not formally aware of it and have received confirmation from USADA but do not see the awarded medal being removed but shall look at whatever information USADA send them.
Why would USADA call any witnesses? To help Armstrong? They wont and that was Armstrong lawyers contention in the case as well as no evidence!
The appeal situation shows you dont even read up on details you are informed about such as 2006 positive tests between UCI and WADA. UCI did not send the case to CAS which you say is the protocol but that didnt happen and it as dismissed against WADA, I know this because Armstrong was never cited or charged or sanctioned.
Can you not get it through your thick head that if there is NO LEGAL case to answer there isnt a case and USADA are more than bending the rules to suit themselves, just like your comments!
You are a fool Cam who cannot thread togeter a cogent argument or pull together a balanced argument with facts.
If you cannot see that when a Legal Case cannot be pulled together with thousands of man hours and millions of $ it should be left alone.
None of what I say above means he didnt take PED's it just means that under a fair and just system of analysis you cannot prove it.
USADA are not using a fair and just system and not sticking to their own rules bankrupts their credibility.
Living in the real world Cam does mean you get dissapointed that those in charge on many ocaissons DONT do what they should.
#23 Oct 3, 2012
Again you shout, insult and worst of all, conclude/assume that as there is not a legal case to be heard in a us court of law. That there is not a valid and legal case to be heard in arbitration. Through the correct and proper channels which are in place to go after all cyclists who cheat through doping.
You surprise me with this claim. As you know that the same Judge Sparks you have quoted above, finds that in his court "The record shows Armstrong has agreed to arbitrate some doping matters with USADA, and
that the USADA Protocol requires challenges to the existence, scope, or validity of the agreement
to be made in the course of arbitration. Despite its many misgivings about USADA's conduct
leading up to and during this case, the Court is bound to honor Armstrong's agreement. While the
Court would typically stay this case pending the outcome of arbitration, the Court has already
decided dismissal is warranted for independent reasons; accordingly, the Court dismisses
Armstrong's non-due process claims without prejudice"
The Judge makes it quite clear that irrespective of his own or armstrongs concern over usada's actions. That armstrong should submit to arbitration over alleged doping violations both "legally" and morally if he has the strength of his convictions. There armstrong would have no need to worry about any wrongful or incorrect judgments.
After Lance Armstrong filed a revised lawsuit against the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency , asking the federal judge in Austin to stop the agency from stripping his seven Tour de France titles and banning him from sport for life if he fails to agree to submit to arbitration over alleged doping violations. "The Judge found With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the Court agrees they are without merit
and therefore dismisses them without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. The Court further agrees the Sports Act and Armstrong's arbitration agreement preclude
his remaining claims, and the Court therefore dismisses those claims without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, even if the Court has jurisdiction over Armstrong's
remaining claims, the Court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of
international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a
single nation's courts; the Court thus declines to grant equitable relief on Armstrong's remaining
claims on this alternative basis.
Armstrong is asking a court of the United States to decide matters which are designed to be resolved
by, and with direct input from, members of the international community. If Armstrong proceeds to
arbitration with USADA, all relevant parties, including WADA and UCI, can be joined and heard,
and the issues decided by people with expertise in the field. If any party is unsatisfied with the result, the matter can be appealed to CAS,37 and then to the courts of Switzerland, to the extent
permitted by that country's law. Instead, Armstrong would have this Court decide many of the
relevant issues in the first instance, even though at least one apparently interested party has not been
joined, and any appeals would be to courts exclusively within the United States. The Court declines
to circumvent the longstanding system of international arbitration in Olympic sports by unilaterally
enjoining that system's operation"
i know its a lot to take in, but i think it would be more exact to say that there is a legal case to answer. Through arbitration under USADA's remit. Its just that la knows what he did and what the evidence is going to say. Its like you say geeman, he did take ped's.
Add your comments below
|Diesel Brothers||Sep 4||Ray Lim||1|
|Missing the boat||May '17||Scott k||1|
|street outlaws||Mar '17||robs rod||1|
|New Discovery channel logo is annoying (Mar '17)||Mar '17||Jay||1|
|pieter cruisel owner of flamingo 1333 listening... (Jan '07)||Feb '17||NOOB||26|
|Not Even Lance Deserves This (Dec '13)||Jan '17||Phoenix||43|
|Is Something Wrong With The Discovery Channel? (Mar '15)||Nov '16||T Filson||2|
Find what you want!
Search Discovery Channel Forum Now
Copyright © 2017 Topix LLC