|
|
Post by Bundy on Jun 14, 2012 10:58:21 GMT 10
Since I am a regular cycling fan, this is pretty big news for me. I thought back a couple of months ago that USADA dropped their pursuit of Armstrong but it seems that it was Federal prosectors instead... Anyway be interesting to see if his 'completely clean record over his entire professional cycling career' defence holds up or whether the allegations spruiked by the likes of Floyd Landis and Tyler Hamilton that they witnessed him doing it and team and race officials were involved in a cover-up of his positive tests can be substianted and proved true... www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/more-sports/lance-armstrong-faces-formal-doping-charges-brought-by-usada/story-e6frey6i-1226395040112 |
|
|
|
Post by crikey on Jun 14, 2012 17:04:24 GMT 10
It will be interesting, There was a guy on the ABC in the cycling circles suggesting, That he was reasonably sure Armstrong would be stripped of the 7 titles, Time will tell I suppose.
(Bundy better start a tour thread soon)
|
|
|
|
Post by donk on Jun 14, 2012 18:03:20 GMT 10
This is heading for a Penthouse to the Shithouse kind of story!
With his celebrity status it will be hard for him to show his face if he is found out!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Jun 14, 2012 18:35:22 GMT 10
This is heading for a Penthouse to the Shithouse kind of story! With his celebrity status it will be hard for him to show his face if he is found out! Yes it will surely be the greatest fall from fame since it was proved that Marion Jones dopped her way to those Olympic gold medals...  @ crikey - yep I'll have one in the works soon. |
|
|
|
Post by HDT05 on Jun 15, 2012 23:04:49 GMT 10
Not good news for him, if he's found out then wow imagine the news...this is a massive story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Jun 30, 2012 19:46:21 GMT 10
So the USADA's review board looking into the Armstrong saga has announced that it will go ahead with filing formal charges against Armstrong for engaging in a conspiracy over 13 years from 1998 to 2011 to boost his and his team's performance through the use of performance enhancing drugs. It will be intriguing to see what the outcome of all of this will be... www.cyclingnews.com/news/doping-charges-recommended-in-armstrong-case |
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Jul 5, 2012 21:55:07 GMT 10
This is pretty significant news in this matter with up to 5 ex-teammates reportedly set to testify against Armstrong as USADA go about trying to prove their case that Armstrong engaged in a 13 year long conspiracy of using performance enhancing drugs. One of them is George Hincapie, who after having competed in 17 Tour de Frances is set to retire at the end of the year and in 7 of those was in the same team as Armstrong, is about to confess that he was complicit in the conspiracy and took performance enchancing drugs and saw Armstrong take them himself. If this turns out to be substantiated, he faces a 6 month ban. Hence, probably why he took the decision to retire at the end of the year. But Hincapie's confession that Armstrong is in fact a doper does add the extra credibility and weight that the allegations of Hamilton and Landis couldn't provide the authorities...so we are getting ever closer to obtaining closure on this and it's looking like Armstrong's tremendous record is about to evaporate... www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/us-cyclists-testify-against-lance-armstrong-report/story-e6frg7mf-1226418205406
In the alternative Armstrong's arguments can be found in this 11 page letter to the USADA review board: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sports/lance.htmlAnd below is legal opinion from cycling news about Armstrong and his lawyer's position: Where's the evidence? Can USADA withhold it from Armstrong?
ii. The Review Board shall be provided the laboratory documentation and any additional information which USADA deems appropriate. Copies of this information shall be provided simultaneously to the Athlete or other Person and the Athlete or other Person shall be entitled to file a response with the Review Board. The Athlete’s or other Person’s name will not be provided to the Review Board by USADA and will be redacted from any documents submitted to the Review Board by USADA. (from USADA Protocols)
A chief complaint from Armstrong's lawyers is that they were only provided with the laboratory data from 2009 and 2010 by USADA, and no evidence supporting any of the other myriad allegations. Is this allowed?
Under Protocol 11 of USADA: "The Review Board shall be provided the laboratory documentation and any additional information which USADA deems appropriate. Copies of this information shall be provided simultaneously to the Athlete..."
So USADA has discretion as to what information it will provide to the Review Board, but thereafter does not have the option to not provide the same information to the athlete, which leads to several possible conclusions. First, the USADA only forwarded to the board 2009 and 2010 data, providing the minimum which would lead the review board to recommend a doping violation, keeping the rest of its evidence to itself. Second, as Armstrong's attorneys argue, the USADA is withholding information relevant to the investigation from Armstrong. Or third, the review board, pursuant to §11(v), requested additional information from USADA which the USADA was only required to provide to the review board and not the athlete.
The charges brought by USADA go as far back as 1998, so presumably it has submitted – in one way or another – all relevant information with regard to those violations to the board. If the information relating to pre-2009 allegations was in fact provided in response to a review board request, it appears the USADA has found a loophole in its protocol to withhold information from Armstrong.
The USADA rules suggest that it is ultimately free to disregard the recommendation of the board. However, per §11, evidence with regard to all violations within the purview of USADA must be submitted to the board for review and simultaneously provided to the athlete. It appears that at least on some level, the USADA was not fully compliant with the initial stages of the review process or played fast and loose with its own rules.
(Note: Cyclingnews believes USADA is using the following rule, part of the American Arbitration Association's Supplementary Procedures for the Arbitration of Olympic Sport Doping Disputes to limit the scope of the information provided in order to protect the identity of witnesses:
R-18. Exchange of Information
a. At the request of any party or at the discretion of the arbitrator, consistent with the expedited nature of arbitration, the arbitrator may direct (i) the production of documents and other information, and (ii) the identification of any witnesses to be called.
These are old charges, what about the eight-year statute of limitations?
ARTICLE 17: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred. (WADA Code)
The board just completed the review and recommended to USADA to charge Armstrong with doping and related conspiracy charges. In accordance with WADA code, there exists a statute of limitation of eight years from the date the violation is alleged to have occurred. Therefore, even if charges are filed, the USADA will only be able to go as far back as 2004. Article 17 of WADA is one of the provisions that must be adopted by USADA without any substantive changes per WADA article 23. Unless the USADA can persuade a panel of arbitrators to disregard the statute of limitations.
The USADA is relying on the decision issued by the American Arbitration Association in the case of Eddy Hellebuyk, a marathoner suspended from the sport on doping charges, where the AAA determined that due to prior perjury, he would not be able to avail himself of the statute of limitations. The only matter in which Armstrong has given testimony under oath is in the litigation against SCA Promotions, which he ultimately won. That testimony was given in a deposition, not before the AAA panel. The Hellebuyk was a case of first impression before the AAA in this context, and it is unclear whether a panel of arbitrators will be willing to extend it to the facts of this case.
After all, assuming Armstrong's SCA Promotions testimony where he denied doping was false, it was not actually given to the panel, nor was the testimony given to escape doping charges, as it was in Hellebuyk's case. The arbitration panel in Hellebuyk's case appeared to be focused on those facts to find the statute of limitation inapplicable. Not to mention that the USADA will have to first prove that the testimony given by Armstrong was false. This was easy in Hellebuyk because he subsequently admitted to lying in the initial hearing.
Notwithstanding the above, there is another legal wrinkle that could result in a AAA panel finding the statute of limitations is inapplicable: equitable tolling. If an accused acts in such a way as to prevent the discovery of the harm done (this has to go beyond merely being silent about it) - meaning the instrumentalities under his control were used to thwart the finding of a violation - equitable tolling could come into play to extend the statute of limitations beyond the statutory limits.
However, for this to happen, the USADA will have to fill a lot of blanks. Not only will it have to affirmatively prove that Armstrong is guilty of the violations charged, but it will also have to show that he somehow acted to thwart previous investigations, and but for his actions, the doping allegations which are now outside the statute of limitations would have been discovered earlier. That won't be easy, as under AAA rules, Armstrong does not have to testify in these proceeding.
Lastly, if the USADA is successful in proving that Armstrong was part of an ongoing doping conspiracy – one of the charges against him - the statute of limitations may not be applicable if it is proven that the conspiracy continued into the limitation period. In other words, if USADA will be able to show that Armstrong’s doping violations stemmed from an ongoing conspiracy that started in 1998 and continued to 2010, Article 17 of WADA doesn’t even come into play.
Where does the case go from here?
The hearing is set for November and will be before the AAA in accordance with the rules governing arbitration of Olympic sport doping disputes. As is typical with hearings before the AAA, the legal rules of evidence don't apply, and the arbitrators are free to consider and admit any material deemed relevant. The only requirement being that the presentment of evidence be before all of the arbitrators and the parties. Meaning that whatever evidence USADA may wish to present to AAA will have to be presented to Armstrong, whose defense team will certainly have a run at it.
Given that the arbitrators are not selected by the USADA alone, but are neutral "judges" selected by both parties (there is a chance that it will be heard by only one arbitrator, unless an election is made to have three), the objections to evidence raised by Armstrong's attorneys may play a role and the panel may reject some of the evidence.
With that said, it is likewise possible that despite the less-than ethical/legal collection of evidence charged by Armstrong's attorneys in the letter to the Review Board, it will still be considered by the arbitration panel in reaching its decision.
This is not an easy case for the USADA to prove by any stretch of the imagination. The USADA faces three main obstacles: first, it will have to meet a heavy evidentiary burden to persuade the AAA panel to disregard the statute of limitations; second, it will have to persuade the AAA to admit into evidence information that could have been collected in violation of USADA protocol and/or U.S. Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; finally, it will have to persuade the AAA to give adequate weight to testimony of witnesses who may have previously been dishonest about their own doping conduct.
(All evidence will be made public at the arbitration hearing, should Armstrong agree to one, including witness testimony. - Ed)
www.cyclingnews.com/news/legal-opinion-armstrongs-arguments-against-usada
|
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Jul 20, 2012 21:32:13 GMT 10
In the latest chapter to the Armstrong saga, USADA is about to ask the United States Distict Court to knock out Armstrong's lawsuit that the USADA shouldn't be permitted to file charges against Armstrong for a doping conspiracy. Armstrong is arguing that the charges are outside the USADA's charter. USADA, on the other hand, argues that as Armstrong has relied before on the USADA's ability to install and monitor anti-doping programs in his previous litigation against other parties that he wouldn't be coming to these present proceedings with his claim against USADA in 'good faith'. Frankly, I think Armstrong is looking more and more desperate everyday to try to avoid his judgement day. www.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-calls-for-armstrong-lawsuit-to-be-dismissed |
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Aug 24, 2012 12:46:17 GMT 10
It was probably inevitable in the end given the weight of evidence that was mounting against him that he should 'fall on his sword' and in effect admit to the charges that were being brought against him by the USADA. But it's not as easy as that though as Armstrong has backed down because he doesn't believe the USADA has the authority to declare that he was a drug cheat and be stripped of his 7 tour de France titles but rather this can only be done by UCI, the sport's governing body, at a Court of Arbitration for Sport hearing. It is nearly the final nail that will forever tarnish and destroy Armstrong's once glittering career achievements. www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-wont-fight-usada-charges |
|
|
|
Post by wrighty05 on Aug 24, 2012 13:16:45 GMT 10
Hmmm, not fighting the charges implies guilt I guess.
Surely USADA can't strip him of his titles though? Isn't that the UCI?
It's a shame, especially if it affects Livestrong and all the cancer fundraising related stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by crikey on Aug 24, 2012 18:59:19 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Aug 24, 2012 21:57:29 GMT 10
You just have to wonder how deep and systemic the corruption and the cover-up goes within the hierachy of the UCI if Armstrong can announce today that he no longer wants to fight these charges when he has always so resoundingly relied on never being found to have tested positive to any banned substance.
And once more, you have to wonder why UCI haven't joined USADA to investigate these drug doping allegations and try to bring it to end through proceedings at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the only real forum that could decide Lance's fate) because just from what I can see after following this sage for awhile that there seems to be quite a bit of witness testimony from ex-team mates that saw him take and inject the banned substances...
maybe its a case of UCI protecting its own officials and not exposing them to conspiracy charges after perhaps they played an integral role in this saga of protecting Armstrong...then you also have to consider the alleged large payments made by Armstrong's team (masked by being called donation) to UCI and whether that was for the purpose of covering up what Armstrong was illegally doing...
|
|
|
|
Post by wrighty05 on Aug 25, 2012 9:01:28 GMT 10
It's like the 100 meters at Seoul in 1988.
Johnson was the best out of a bunch of cheats
|
|
|
|
Post by donk on Aug 26, 2012 14:20:41 GMT 10
It's like the 100 meters at Seoul in 1988. Johnson was the best out of a bunch of cheats LOL! ;D ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Aug 26, 2012 20:34:54 GMT 10
I read elsewhere of some opinion whose position is quite peculiar and contradictory.
First off, by no means do they condone what Armstrong has done if they take the view that he is a cheat because he failed to contest the charge, thus, in a sense, accepting the drug taking accusations levelled against him but in the same light go on and hope that he can continue to be involved as the spokesperson and ambassador for his charity Livestrong (or it continue without his involvement)......they and of course I certainly acknowledge that it has done great things for many people who are less fortunate that you or I.
But this remarkable story of his life that he has risen above adversity of having cancer to conquering one of the hardest sports in the world which underlies all this interest and generates all these donations to the charity has been predicated on a lie...that he didn't achieve these great spoting feats through fair or legitimate hard work, training or means but instead took performance enhancing drugs to assist him 'artificially' achieve these feats.
I just don't see how his charity can have anymore credibility to be able to accept these donations for the purpose that the charity was originally set up to do...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Oct 11, 2012 11:26:30 GMT 10
So today USADA released its 'reasoned decisions' report into the charges of doping and conspiracy to dope that Armstrong has been embroiled in and has decided not to contest, therefore accepting guilt. It contains the testimony of a couple of dozen witnesses but the most damning of all is the testimony of his 11 ex-team-mates who have testified in their sworn affidavits that they not only witnessed him taking drugs himself but he openly encouraged his team-mates to do likewise and even threatened them that they had to take performance enhancing drugs or else they would face the repercussions of being booted from the team. Armstrong has always used as one of his attack lines the credibility of the riders that have testified against him that either they want their own back having tested positive before and got banned or are after money, but the rider whose credibility he really can't attack is George Hincapie who like Armstrong has riden for the past 15 years without having a positive test been found against him. From the exerts of his affidavit, he notes that everything changed when Armstrong came back to racing after his bout of cancer that he was competing in this race in Spain and put in all this 'clean' effort but still couldn't put a dent into the other riders as they were taking performance enhancing drugs themselves. So, he said from that moment on that he himself would take drugs to and proceeded to work with a doctor who developed a drug taking program that not only he was to be on but his whole team. And Hincapie himself heard on numerous occasions after that of Armstrong admitting to using testosterone or EPO. He also, as did the other team-mates of Armstrong, start using drugs because as Hincapie says in his affidavit, that he was putting in all this effort in training but still not getting the results in the races. So, USADA believes that this was one of the most complex and sophisticated doping programs ever used by any sporting team and with the weight of evidence that they have collected, I can't really doubt that. It's just a shame that Armstrong continues to deny it citing his clean record despite Hincapie having the same but having now admitted to taking drugs during his career. But I guess for a man who has been so good at misleading and decieving the world for the past 15 years or so that he is a honest, fair and decent racer, it's not beyond him to maintain that this decision is all a conspiracy against him to bring him down.
www.cyclingnews.com/news/usadas-reasoned-decision-on-lance-armstrong-follows-the-money-trailwww.cyclingnews.com/news/george-hincapie-confesses-to-dopingwww.cyclingnews.com/news/usada-bruyneel-a-key-player-in-armstrong-and-teams-dopingwww.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-lawyer-reacts-to-usada-reasoned-decision-press-release |
|
|
|
Post by donk on Oct 12, 2012 16:11:14 GMT 10
Sounds as though the evidence has mounted!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Oct 12, 2012 22:03:40 GMT 10
Sounds as though the evidence has mounted! And it seems he has drowned under the weight of it all... |
|
jamolad
Formula Ford Driver
Posts: 211
|
Post by jamolad on Oct 14, 2012 9:04:23 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Bundy on Oct 14, 2012 11:24:55 GMT 10
|
|
