Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lance Armstrong refiles lawsuit against anti-doping agency
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Obama Drug Dealer
Jul 11, 2012, 6:36:27 AM7/11/12
to
(Reuters) - Lawyers for retired cycling champ Lance Armstrong on
Tuesday refiled a lawsuit in a bid to stop the U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency (USADA) from proceeding with a case charging him with
using drugs during the years he won the Tour de France.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed Armstrong's
80-page lawsuit as a "lengthy and bitter polemic," but gave his
lawyers up to 20 days to file an amended complaint.
The lawsuit refiled by Armstrong's lawyers at the U.S. District
Court in his hometown of Austin, Texas, was much shorter at 25
pages.
Armstrong faces a looming deadline on Saturday to either
challenge the charges that he took performance-enhancing drugs,
or accept sanctions that could strip him of his seven Tour de
France titles and ban him from the sport for life if he is found
guilty.
The USADA is a quasi-governmental agency created by Congress in
2000 and charges would be considered by its own arbitration
process. Any penalties would be binding within the sport, but
federal courts have the power to overrule the agency.
Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
agreed to testify against him.
Lawyers for Armstrong also argue that the USADA's rules violate
his right to a fair trial and that the agency lacks proper
jurisdiction to charge him.
In a statement issued on Monday, the USADA said Armstrong's
lawsuit is "without merit" and that USADA rules "provide full
constitutional due process designed to protect the rights of
clean athletes and the integrity of the sport."
Accusations of doping have dogged Armstrong since he ascended to
the top of the cycling world after overcoming cancer. In
February, the U.S. Justice Department dropped an investigation
centered on whether Armstrong and his teammates cheated the
sponsor of their bike racing team, the U.S. Postal Service, with
a secret doping program.
But on Tuesday, three former Armstrong associates were handed
lifetime bans for their involvement in an alleged doping
conspiracy, the USADA said.
Team doctor Luis Garcia del Moral, consulting doctor Michele
Ferrari and trainer Jose "Pepe" Marti were all banned from the
sport for life after USADA found they had violated a series of
anti-doping regulations.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/11/us-usa-armstrong-
doping-idUSBRE86A04N20120711
Tuesday refiled a lawsuit in a bid to stop the U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency (USADA) from proceeding with a case charging him with
using drugs during the years he won the Tour de France.
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks dismissed Armstrong's
80-page lawsuit as a "lengthy and bitter polemic," but gave his
lawyers up to 20 days to file an amended complaint.
The lawsuit refiled by Armstrong's lawyers at the U.S. District
Court in his hometown of Austin, Texas, was much shorter at 25
pages.
Armstrong faces a looming deadline on Saturday to either
challenge the charges that he took performance-enhancing drugs,
or accept sanctions that could strip him of his seven Tour de
France titles and ban him from the sport for life if he is found
guilty.
The USADA is a quasi-governmental agency created by Congress in
2000 and charges would be considered by its own arbitration
process. Any penalties would be binding within the sport, but
federal courts have the power to overrule the agency.
Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
agreed to testify against him.
Lawyers for Armstrong also argue that the USADA's rules violate
his right to a fair trial and that the agency lacks proper
jurisdiction to charge him.
In a statement issued on Monday, the USADA said Armstrong's
lawsuit is "without merit" and that USADA rules "provide full
constitutional due process designed to protect the rights of
clean athletes and the integrity of the sport."
Accusations of doping have dogged Armstrong since he ascended to
the top of the cycling world after overcoming cancer. In
February, the U.S. Justice Department dropped an investigation
centered on whether Armstrong and his teammates cheated the
sponsor of their bike racing team, the U.S. Postal Service, with
a secret doping program.
But on Tuesday, three former Armstrong associates were handed
lifetime bans for their involvement in an alleged doping
conspiracy, the USADA said.
Team doctor Luis Garcia del Moral, consulting doctor Michele
Ferrari and trainer Jose "Pepe" Marti were all banned from the
sport for life after USADA found they had violated a series of
anti-doping regulations.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/11/us-usa-armstrong-
doping-idUSBRE86A04N20120711
Unknown
Jul 11, 2012, 8:28:38 AM7/11/12
to
"Obama Drug Dealer" wrote in message
news:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> agreed to testify against him.
An innocent man would argue that he had done nothing wrong.
news:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> agreed to testify against him.
David Johnston
Jul 11, 2012, 9:06:12 AM7/11/12
to
agreed to testify against you?"
Obveeus
Jul 11, 2012, 9:48:06 AM7/11/12
to
giving false testimony under the threat of losing their own career
eligibility if they do not.
DirtRoadie
Jul 11, 2012, 9:55:53 AM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 6:28 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <[bu...@kaufman.net]> wrote:
> "Obama Drug Dealer" wrote in messagenews:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
insure not being found guilty of something he didn't do.
DR
> "Obama Drug Dealer" wrote in messagenews:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
> > Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> > by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> > agreed to testify against him.
>
> An innocent man would argue that he had done nothing wrong.
An innocent man would also take any course of action available to
> > Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> > by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> > agreed to testify against him.
>
> An innocent man would argue that he had done nothing wrong.
insure not being found guilty of something he didn't do.
DR
Anton Berlin
Jul 11, 2012, 10:18:16 AM7/11/12
to
RicodJour
Jul 11, 2012, 10:37:28 AM7/11/12
to
You mean 'assure'. :)~
Insure {definition 3}
(chiefly US) Alternative spelling of ensure: (transitive) To make sure
or certain of; guarantee.
1787, Preamble to the United States Constitution,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, INSURE domestic Tranquility
That usage is in the US Constitution, which is like the Bible but more
accurate, which trumps your Gallic garlic gargling fuzzy logic,
goombah.
R
RBR Arbiter of English Language Usage and Chief Consumer of Aglio e
Oglio
atriage
Jul 11, 2012, 10:52:51 AM7/11/12
to
--
Anton Berlin
Jul 11, 2012, 10:58:10 AM7/11/12
to
While it's clear insure is wrong - you're right - probably best to use
'assure' for people - 'ensure' for things and 'insure' for $$
DirtRoadie
Jul 11, 2012, 11:28:24 AM7/11/12
to
Let's take your preferred word:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/ensure
"Synonyms assure, cinch, guarantee, guaranty, ice, insure, secure"
If you must engage in pedantry, the least you could do is insure
accuracy.
DR
RicodJour
Jul 11, 2012, 11:44:31 AM7/11/12
to
attack was, "you're right".
I already knew that.
R
RBR Self-immolating Martyr Extraordinaire
Mason Barge
Jul 11, 2012, 12:06:57 PM7/11/12
to
doping, is the USADA justified in letting guilty bike riders get off in
order to take down a more famous, dominant athlete? I guess maybe so.
But it's not like a drug cartel or crime syndicate, where you're going to
do a lot more damage to the organization by going after the boss.
Anyway, with a fair hearing -- at least, with real jurors -- that does a
lot of damage to the credibility of the witness.
DirtRoadie
Jul 11, 2012, 12:23:45 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 10:06 am, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:48:06 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
The problem with the hard core anti Lance crowd is their religious
faith that he's a doper coupled with their belief that therefore no
procedure or punishment is unfair or too severe.
Sort of like deciding that jaywalking is a crime, therefore we will
arm police officers who will summarily shoot anyone perceived to be
jaywalking.
I'm still trying to get a handle on what actual authority USADA has.
Even the UCI does not seem to know.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-comments-on-usada-lifetime-bans
DR
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:48:06 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
faith that he's a doper coupled with their belief that therefore no
procedure or punishment is unfair or too severe.
Sort of like deciding that jaywalking is a crime, therefore we will
arm police officers who will summarily shoot anyone perceived to be
jaywalking.
I'm still trying to get a handle on what actual authority USADA has.
Even the UCI does not seem to know.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-comments-on-usada-lifetime-bans
DR
Sir Ridesalot
Jul 11, 2012, 3:44:48 PM7/11/12
to
it was "Innocent until proven guilty." This thing with Lance just
shows again that it's Guilty until proven innocent. With at least 500
negative blood tests for doping I feel that this is a vendeta against
Lance pure and simple.
Cheers
A. Dumas
Jul 11, 2012, 4:24:34 PM7/11/12
to
On 11/07/2012 21:44, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> With at least 500 negative blood tests for doping
Pfft. http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/the-legend-of-the-500/
> With at least 500 negative blood tests for doping
Phil H
Jul 11, 2012, 4:36:36 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 5:28 am, "Sanders Kaufman" <[bu...@kaufman.net]> wrote:
> "Obama Drug Dealer" wrote in messagenews:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
enhancing drugs?
Trying to predict whether he is innocent or guilty based on these kind
of actions is absurd.
Phil H
> "Obama Drug Dealer" wrote in messagenews:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
> > Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> > by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> > agreed to testify against him.
>
> An innocent man would argue that he had done nothing wrong.
So how times does he have to say I've never taken performance
> > Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> > by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> > agreed to testify against him.
>
> An innocent man would argue that he had done nothing wrong.
enhancing drugs?
Trying to predict whether he is innocent or guilty based on these kind
of actions is absurd.
Phil H
Phil H
Jul 11, 2012, 4:49:22 PM7/11/12
to
What's the exchange rate? How many tests per damning testimonies to
break even?
Phil H
DirtRoadie
Jul 11, 2012, 5:48:12 PM7/11/12
to
structured. But that is when the _government_ is charging someone with
a crime and not when there is a civil (for example, contract) matter
between parties.
A primary question raised by LA's lawsuit is whether USADA, a
government creation (although private) acting with government funds
and with the full cooperation of government investigators should be
considered a "state actor" (government entity) thereby entitling LA to
invoke full constitutional protections against government actions.
And USADA gives the impression of backpedaling at this point.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-07-11/Lance-Armstrong-gets-30-day-extension/56148226/1
DR
BTR1701
Jul 11, 2012, 7:43:24 PM7/11/12
to
In article <2m8rv7hudg2auff36...@4ax.com>,
personal vendetta and the agency loses all credibility.
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:48:06 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/11/2012 6:28 AM, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> >>> "Obama Drug Dealer" wrote in message
> >>> news:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> >>>
> >>>> Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> >>>> by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> >>>> agreed to testify against him.
> >>>
> >>> An innocent man would argue that he had done nothing wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> To which the obvious response would be "So why have fellow cyclists agreed
> >> to testify against you?"
> >
> >The argument being made is that the other cyclists are being coerced into
> >giving false testimony under the threat of losing their own career
> >eligibility if they do not.
>
> Yeah, some very grey areas here. Even if all of them are guilty of
> doping, is the USADA justified in letting guilty bike riders get off in
> order to take down a more famous, dominant athlete? I guess maybe so.
I don't think so. Either they all get the same punishment or it's just a
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:48:06 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote:
> >> On 7/11/2012 6:28 AM, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> >>> "Obama Drug Dealer" wrote in message
> >>> news:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> >>>
> >>>> Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> >>>> by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> >>>> agreed to testify against him.
> >>>
> >>> An innocent man would argue that he had done nothing wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> To which the obvious response would be "So why have fellow cyclists agreed
> >> to testify against you?"
> >
> >The argument being made is that the other cyclists are being coerced into
> >giving false testimony under the threat of losing their own career
> >eligibility if they do not.
>
> Yeah, some very grey areas here. Even if all of them are guilty of
> doping, is the USADA justified in letting guilty bike riders get off in
> order to take down a more famous, dominant athlete? I guess maybe so.
personal vendetta and the agency loses all credibility.
BTR1701
Jul 11, 2012, 7:46:26 PM7/11/12
to
In article
<0099394c-a529-4d0d...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
rigorous as the state's burden in a criminal case, but the plaintiff
still has to prove its case.
In this instance, the plaintiff would be the USADA. It has to prove
Armstrong used the drugs. Armstrong is not required to prove a negative
(that he didn't use the drugs).
> A primary question raised by LA's lawsuit is whether USADA, a
> government creation (although private) acting with government funds
> and with the full cooperation of government investigators should be
> considered a "state actor" (government entity) thereby entitling LA to
> invoke full constitutional protections against government actions.
I don't know much about the agency, but if what you say is true, it's
hard to see how a court could find they're anything but a government
actor.
<0099394c-a529-4d0d...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
DirtRoadie <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jul 11, 1:44 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > I always thought (wrongly as is shown many times) that in the US Law
> > it was "Innocent until proven guilty." This thing with Lance just
> > shows again that it's Guilty until proven innocent. With at least 500
> > negative blood tests for doping I feel that this is a vendeta against
> > Lance pure and simple.
> >
> Yes that is the way the criminal justice system is presumably
> structured. But that is when the _government_ is charging someone with
> a crime and not when there is a civil (for example, contract) matter
> between parties.
Even in civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. It's not as
> On Jul 11, 1:44 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > I always thought (wrongly as is shown many times) that in the US Law
> > it was "Innocent until proven guilty." This thing with Lance just
> > shows again that it's Guilty until proven innocent. With at least 500
> > negative blood tests for doping I feel that this is a vendeta against
> > Lance pure and simple.
> >
> Yes that is the way the criminal justice system is presumably
> structured. But that is when the _government_ is charging someone with
> a crime and not when there is a civil (for example, contract) matter
> between parties.
rigorous as the state's burden in a criminal case, but the plaintiff
still has to prove its case.
In this instance, the plaintiff would be the USADA. It has to prove
Armstrong used the drugs. Armstrong is not required to prove a negative
(that he didn't use the drugs).
> A primary question raised by LA's lawsuit is whether USADA, a
> government creation (although private) acting with government funds
> and with the full cooperation of government investigators should be
> considered a "state actor" (government entity) thereby entitling LA to
> invoke full constitutional protections against government actions.
hard to see how a court could find they're anything but a government
actor.
DirtRoadie
Jul 11, 2012, 8:25:44 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 5:43 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <2m8rv7hudg2auff36uo83nb9hscc6fu...@4ax.com>,
for one party to receive a favorable plea bargain or guarantee of
immunity in exchange for testimony against another party. Hard to say
where credibility fits in in either case.
DR
> In article <2m8rv7hudg2auff36uo83nb9hscc6fu...@4ax.com>,
> Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:48:06 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 09:48:06 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >"David Johnston" <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> > >> On 7/11/2012 6:28 AM, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> > >>> "Obama Drug Dealer" wrote in message
> > >>>news:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
> > >>>> Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> > >>>> by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> > >>>> agreed to testify against him.
>
> > >>> An innocent man would argue that he had done nothing wrong.
>
> > >> To which the obvious response would be "So why have fellow cyclists agreed
> > >> to testify against you?"
>
> > >The argument being made is that the other cyclists are being coerced into
> > >giving false testimony under the threat of losing their own career
> > >eligibility if they do not.
>
> > Yeah, some very grey areas here. Even if all of them are guilty of
> > doping, is the USADA justified in letting guilty bike riders get off in
> > order to take down a more famous, dominant athlete? I guess maybe so.
>
> I don't think so. Either they all get the same punishment or it's just a
> personal vendetta and the agency loses all credibility.
Keep in mind that even in a garden variety criminal case it is common
> > >> On 7/11/2012 6:28 AM, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> > >>> "Obama Drug Dealer" wrote in message
> > >>>news:66fd4162518c6420...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>
> > >>>> Lawyers for Armstrong contend that the USADA gathered evidence
> > >>>> by threatening to ruin the careers of fellow cyclists who have
> > >>>> agreed to testify against him.
>
> > >>> An innocent man would argue that he had done nothing wrong.
>
> > >> To which the obvious response would be "So why have fellow cyclists agreed
> > >> to testify against you?"
>
> > >The argument being made is that the other cyclists are being coerced into
> > >giving false testimony under the threat of losing their own career
> > >eligibility if they do not.
>
> > Yeah, some very grey areas here. Even if all of them are guilty of
> > doping, is the USADA justified in letting guilty bike riders get off in
> > order to take down a more famous, dominant athlete? I guess maybe so.
>
> I don't think so. Either they all get the same punishment or it's just a
> personal vendetta and the agency loses all credibility.
for one party to receive a favorable plea bargain or guarantee of
immunity in exchange for testimony against another party. Hard to say
where credibility fits in in either case.
DR
David Johnston
Jul 11, 2012, 9:52:57 PM7/11/12
to
On 7/11/2012 5:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <0099394c-a529-4d0d...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> DirtRoadie <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 11, 1:44 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>> I always thought (wrongly as is shown many times) that in the US Law
>>> it was "Innocent until proven guilty." This thing with Lance just
>>> shows again that it's Guilty until proven innocent. With at least 500
>>> negative blood tests for doping I feel that this is a vendeta against
>>> Lance pure and simple.
>>>
>> Yes that is the way the criminal justice system is presumably
>> structured. But that is when the _government_ is charging someone with
>> a crime and not when there is a civil (for example, contract) matter
>> between parties.
>
> Even in civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. It's not as
> rigorous as the state's burden in a criminal case, but the plaintiff
> still has to prove its case.
>
> In this instance, the plaintiff would be the USADA.
Who is suing whom?
> In article
> <0099394c-a529-4d0d...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> DirtRoadie <DirtR...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 11, 1:44 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>> I always thought (wrongly as is shown many times) that in the US Law
>>> it was "Innocent until proven guilty." This thing with Lance just
>>> shows again that it's Guilty until proven innocent. With at least 500
>>> negative blood tests for doping I feel that this is a vendeta against
>>> Lance pure and simple.
>>>
>> Yes that is the way the criminal justice system is presumably
>> structured. But that is when the _government_ is charging someone with
>> a crime and not when there is a civil (for example, contract) matter
>> between parties.
>
> Even in civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. It's not as
> rigorous as the state's burden in a criminal case, but the plaintiff
> still has to prove its case.
>
> In this instance, the plaintiff would be the USADA.
BTR1701
Jul 11, 2012, 9:58:49 PM7/11/12
to
In article <jtlam7$qrv$1...@dont-email.me>,
I was under the impression this USADA group had formally charged
Armstrong with doping.
Armstrong with doping.
DirtRoadie
Jul 11, 2012, 10:35:49 PM7/11/12
to
On Jul 11, 7:58 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <jtlam7$qr...@dont-email.me>,
driving.
See http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-comments-on-usada-lifetime-bans
The formal lawsuit (in a "real" court) was initiated by LA, saying
among other things "USADA has no authority to do that."
DR
> In article <jtlam7$qr...@dont-email.me>,
> David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/11/2012 5:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <0099394c-a529-4d0d-a400-17f92e122...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/11/2012 5:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > In article
> > > DirtRoadie <DirtRoa...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >> On Jul 11, 1:44 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > >>> I always thought (wrongly as is shown many times) that in the US Law
> > >>> it was "Innocent until proven guilty." This thing with Lance just
> > >>> shows again that it's Guilty until proven innocent. With at least 500
> > >>> negative blood tests for doping I feel that this is a vendeta against
> > >>> Lance pure and simple.
>
> > >> Yes that is the way the criminal justice system is presumably
> > >> structured. But that is when the _government_ is charging someone with
> > >> a crime and not when there is a civil (for example, contract) matter
> > >> between parties.
>
> > > Even in civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. It's not as
> > > rigorous as the state's burden in a criminal case, but the plaintiff
> > > still has to prove its case.
>
> > > In this instance, the plaintiff would be the USADA.
>
> > Who is suing whom?
>
> I was under the impression this USADA group had formally charged
> Armstrong with doping.
With about the same significance as me charging you with reckless
>
> > >> On Jul 11, 1:44 pm, Sir Ridesalot <i_am_cycle_pat...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > >>> I always thought (wrongly as is shown many times) that in the US Law
> > >>> it was "Innocent until proven guilty." This thing with Lance just
> > >>> shows again that it's Guilty until proven innocent. With at least 500
> > >>> negative blood tests for doping I feel that this is a vendeta against
> > >>> Lance pure and simple.
>
> > >> Yes that is the way the criminal justice system is presumably
> > >> structured. But that is when the _government_ is charging someone with
> > >> a crime and not when there is a civil (for example, contract) matter
> > >> between parties.
>
> > > Even in civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. It's not as
> > > rigorous as the state's burden in a criminal case, but the plaintiff
> > > still has to prove its case.
>
> > > In this instance, the plaintiff would be the USADA.
>
> > Who is suing whom?
>
> I was under the impression this USADA group had formally charged
> Armstrong with doping.
driving.
See http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-comments-on-usada-lifetime-bans
The formal lawsuit (in a "real" court) was initiated by LA, saying
among other things "USADA has no authority to do that."
DR
Fred Flintstein
Jul 11, 2012, 11:14:46 PM7/11/12
to
As trolls go this is good work. Keep it up.
F
F
David Johnston
Jul 12, 2012, 12:21:01 AM7/12/12
to
On 7/11/2012 7:58 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In this instance, the plaintiff would be the USADA.
>>
>> Who is suing whom?
>
> I was under the impression this USADA group had formally charged
> Armstrong with doping.
>
No, it's more like they fired him from his job and he's suing them over
>>> In this instance, the plaintiff would be the USADA.
>>
>> Who is suing whom?
>
> I was under the impression this USADA group had formally charged
> Armstrong with doping.
>
it.
Randall
Jul 12, 2012, 4:19:43 AM7/12/12
to
On Jul 11, 6:48 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
If the Lance is allowed to civilly challenge the USADA ruling then the
other riders testimony largely becomes a non issue. Us because someone
sees another person take something is not proof that was a drug. Blood
doping may be more problematic for Lance.
The supposedly abnormal blood values is where Lance may have some
problems. But Lances attorneys can argue that there was a improper
chain of evidence and handling of the blood samples. Not sure how this
applies in a civil case.
So there a number of ways Lances lawyers can potentially trip up the
USADA if it is allowed to go to court.
other riders testimony largely becomes a non issue. Us because someone
sees another person take something is not proof that was a drug. Blood
doping may be more problematic for Lance.
The supposedly abnormal blood values is where Lance may have some
problems. But Lances attorneys can argue that there was a improper
chain of evidence and handling of the blood samples. Not sure how this
applies in a civil case.
So there a number of ways Lances lawyers can potentially trip up the
USADA if it is allowed to go to court.
DirtRoadie
Jul 12, 2012, 11:04:13 AM7/12/12
to
seeking a "do-over" or trying to argue (or re-argue) the merits (re
doping) of his case in some other venue. He is essentially seeking
to establish that USADA simply has no authority to rule or take any
action at all. If they do not (and he has raised some compelling
arguments), it is "game over" for them and Lance will have no need to
challenge any testimony or evidence about doping, at least in any
formal legalistic fashion. It would not be at all surprising if USADA
continues with its media campaign.
Here's a portion of what LA is seeking (excerpted directly from his
complaint)
WHEREFORE, Mr. Armstrong seeks the following relief in this action:
a. Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against
Defendants USADA and Tygart staying the asserted requirement that Mr.
Armstrong elect, by July 14, 2012, or any other date, arbitration of
the June 12, 2012 and June 28, 2012 charges, or accept the sanctions
specified in those documents;
b. Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining
Defendants USADA and Tygart from imposing any sanction, or imposing
any costs or fines on Mr. Armstrong, or taking any action with
respect to disqualification of competitive results, awards, titles,
medals, or prizes held by Mr. Armstrong, based on the allegations in
the June 12, 2012 and June 28, 2012 letters;
c. Temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining
Defendants USADA and Tygart from all other actions in furtherance of
pursuing doping charges, imposing sanctions, or taking any action with
respect to disqualification of competitive results, awards, titles,
medals, or prizes held by Mr. Armstrong based on the allegations from
the June 12, 2012 and June 28, 2012 letters;
d. A declaratory judgment against Defendants USADA and Tygart in favor
of Mr. Armstrong that Defendants lacks jurisdiction to bring the
charges asserted Against Mr. Armstrong in the June 12, 2012 and June
28, 2012 letters;
DR
Randall
Jul 12, 2012, 1:04:29 PM7/12/12
to
I see challenging USADA as fall back position for Lance if they rule
against him. I think it is a fairly strong option if it can be
challenged in court.
against him. I think it is a fairly strong option if it can be
challenged in court.
Obveeus
Jul 12, 2012, 1:33:57 PM7/12/12
to
"Randall" <randall...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I see challenging USADA as fall back position for Lance if they rule
>against him. I think it is a fairly strong option if it can be
>challenged in court.
battle with one of their former drivers (Jeremy Mayfield). Basically, a
failed drug test of any kind means lifetime ban with no actual recourse. He
spent three years fighting it only to have a court say that since he signed
the waver agreeing to the racing association's authority (which you have to
sign or they won't let you race), he had no standing to protest their
decisions. Just days after this final court decision, NASCAR set the mark
on the next driver they wish to make a public example of...notifying him of
a failed test just hours before a race and banning him from racing. There
is no recourse...even if a 'B sample' tests negative, he has already lost at
least one start (which for a driver in contention for the championship would
quite likely end their season chances). It is a draconian level of control,
but I assume the same rule will apply: you sign an agreement to be able to
participate, you wave your right to protest the enforcement of whatever
rules were (or in Mayfield's case were not) laid out beforehand.
DirtRoadie
Jul 12, 2012, 2:07:33 PM7/12/12
to
On Jul 12, 11:04 am, Randall <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I see challenging USADA as fall back position for Lance if they rule
> against him. I think it is a fairly strong option if it can be
> challenged in court.
>
They HAVE ruled against him. Then they said he has two choices. (1)
> I see challenging USADA as fall back position for Lance if they rule
> against him. I think it is a fairly strong option if it can be
> challenged in court.
>
"accept our ruling" or (2) "arbitrate - our rules, our court, our
judge. Oh, and by the way if you win, we can start over with a
different set of our rules, our court, and our judge."
And in actuality there isn't much viable precedent for challenging an
arbitration award in Court after the fact.
So that's why he's doing what he is doing now.
Arbitration cannot be be imposed unilaterally. It requires at least
arguable agreement of the parties (like signing a license contract).
Lance is asserting that he has no such agreement with USADA - only
with UCI - and that doesn't transfer over to USADA .
DR
RicodJour
Jul 12, 2012, 2:50:59 PM7/12/12
to
union, revamped UCI, WADA and USADA rules, and it will very probably
make the sport stronger. The odd thing is that that would happen more
quickly if LANCE wins his injunction now. Then it's scramble-time in
the back offices to come up with a Plan B.
Otherwise we'll limp along like before and wait for the next grenade
to be tossed which will _entirely_ coincidentally happen immediately
before the Tour.
R
WrongWayWade
Jul 12, 2012, 3:21:53 PM7/12/12
to
Randall
Jul 13, 2012, 1:32:42 AM7/13/12
to
On Jul 12, 10:33 am, "Obveeus" <Obve...@aol.com> wrote:
agreement. Because if the injunction fails chances are Lance will be
found guilty. Let's face it WADA and USADA are out to get Lance any
way they can.
> "Randall" <randall.shim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I see challenging USADA as fall back position for Lance if they rule
> >against him. I think it is a fairly strong option if it can be
> >challenged in court.
>
Hopefully there was not a clause like this in the UCI membership
> >I see challenging USADA as fall back position for Lance if they rule
> >against him. I think it is a fairly strong option if it can be
> >challenged in court.
>
agreement. Because if the injunction fails chances are Lance will be
found guilty. Let's face it WADA and USADA are out to get Lance any
way they can.
0 new messages