Lance Armstrong Banned and Stripped of TDF Titles

[Wayne Booysen]

The machinations behind the scenes were wild, but what concerns me most is what Judge Sparks said regarding LA future recourse if USADA followed the route they did.

 

Could it be that LA expected this and withdrew tactically so he can now return and attack the case against him. I do not see his refusal to arbitrate as submission. The effect of the USADA sanctions have created precedent whereby LA can now turn to the justice system claiming unfairness and have a chance to win it, which in return will discredit WADA. I am probably just verbalizing what Sparks foresee during the case.

 

That's maybe why the TDF titles will remain vacant...in fear of a possible USADA retraction!

[Tumbleweed]

The machinations behind the scenes were wild, but what concerns me most is what Judge Sparks said regarding LA future recourse if USADA followed the route they did.

 

Could it be that LA expected this and withdrew tactically so he can now return and attack the case against him. I do not see his refusal to arbitrate as submission. The effect of the USADA sanctions have created precedent whereby LA can now turn to the justice system claiming unfairness and have a chance to win it, which in return will discredit WADA. I am probably just verbalizing what Sparks foresee during the case.

 

No, despite his problems with some of the processes, Sparks ruled that LA should proceed with arbitration before attacking the process.

[Tumbleweed]

The thing is, they have now created precedent to used this flawed process again....I would be very nervous if I was a top rider, knowing that a governing body is willing to bend the rules to reach a desired outcome.

 

LA doped....no argument

 

It's not flawed if it's a process the athlete has signed up to compete under. Even funnier is that his own agent helped draft them.

[dracs]

It's not flawed if it's a process the athlete has signed up to compete under. Even funnier is that his own agent helped draft them.

He may well have signed up to the process and his agent may well have had a hand in drafting (didn't know that). Neither these points prove that the process is not flawed however. And Sparks did actually raise some concerns around USADA's conduct.

[EZRider]

 

The thing is, they have now created precedent to used this flawed process again....I would be very nervous if I was a top rider, knowing that a governing body is willing to bend the rules to reach a desired outcome.

 

LA doped....no argument

 

Maybe if enough top riders became nervous enough we wouldn't have to relive Festina, Puerto and Armstrong over and over and over...

Top rider at the mo is JRod and his take is: ban them forever!

[EZRider]

 

 

Hi TZ.

 

You really think Le Mond never doped ? (sorry if it appears I am looking for an argument, just a question )

The way I see Le Mond.

 

Once great cyclist who fell out of the limelight and had sub-standard quality bikes.

Instead of actually getting involved and trying to get academy's going, he rather became one angry little man who tries to walk around as the archangel of the cycling world.

 

Hey Dangle,

 

You are right about Le Mond being a cry baby whiner, just like Hamilton and Landis, seems to be a whistle blower thing...

Not sure if he ever doped, haven't read his name linked to anything yet but that doesn't prove much!

I'm not pro Le Mond or any of them but if you get caught fess up, do your time and move on with something else, quit pointing out how unfair life is when you were the one cheating in the first place.

 

More importantly, you riding the Magoebaskloof classic tomorrow?

[GoLefty!!]

.........

What is worrying is that cyclists and cycling fans, such as yourself, seem to be far more outraged by the potentially flawed process of exposing and excising a fraud and a cheat than the fraud and the cheat himself.

Why?

Surely your moral compass should be spinning for the many clean athletes, sponsors, and fans that were hard done by and in some cases destroyed by LA (Greg Lemond and Simeoni amongst others).

 

My moral code is justice. You should sit on the other end of an inquiry where "an outcome" is being sought that benefits a commercial interest rather than the truth. I believe Lance Armstrong doped. That there are people who claim he was involved with their doping or the cause of it is suspicious because they have a commercial interest at heart which includes selling a version of the the truth.

I am NOT the madding crowd standing around with pitch forks, tar and hot calling "burn him, burn him!" My moral code says give a man a fair trial,even if he has not been entirely fair with you. I am better than him. I am the bigger man.

 

Leave the validity of the process up to those who determine and marshal the process or get involved in formulating policy yourself.

You outrage against USADA comes across as desperate. LA stank and someone cut out the rot.

The stink can't be disguised by asking:

 

Why aren't the others punished?

Why did you change the rules?

It isn't fair! Now he has to give back some of his many, many millions!

Boo Hoo!

 

My question is that when you change the rules to suit an outcome, where does it end. Your morals says "win at all costs" and I do not subscribe to that. My moral code says win fairly. History shows that cheats always come undone and if LA is the cheat he is believed to be he will get away with it to a point.

What we have here is a group of losers who could not win fairly pointing a finger at someone they claim to have won unfairly. It is interesting that those who are most hard done by e.g . Cadel Evans, have said nothing but have accepted the past as the past and that cannot be changed. That shows true class and a strength of character beyond that which most has showed.

 

If we the cyclist choses to build a future on further lies then what is the point. The corruption just buries itself a level deeper and it becomes less visible and it appears that that is what the majority are asking for. "Don't let us see it". Sorry but thats the MAdding crowd shouting and I'm not part of that.

 

Al Capone was a real gangster and and was untouchable. eve having people testify against him never got him convicted. In the end, not paying his taxes did.

 

I am a rational person. I know a witch hunt when I see it. Even though they may have actually caught a real witch in this case, there is also the possibility they didn't catch anything because what they're really looking for is now hiding deeper underground. Or maybe they don;t really want to catch anything ...

 

My view on this matter is in conflict with what I believe. The very process of offering exemption to known dopists in exchange for testimony seems like an obvious get out of jail free card. Anyone who does not view that process with suspicion is very clearly in the "Stone him , stone him" mob.

 

Like I said, I believe he is guilty but I would have prefered that he be found guilty by the process so that we could have comfort that the process works. Instead we left with a desired outcome (the distraction) but a process that is completely broken but people are asking us to believe it will be fixed. So would he be found guilty under the fixed process?

[Wyatt Earp]

Hey Dangle,

 

You are right about Le Mond being a cry baby whiner, just like Hamilton and Landis, seems to be a whistle blower thing...

Not sure if he ever doped, haven't read his name linked to anything yet but that doesn't prove much!

I'm not pro Le Mond or any of them but if you get caught fess up, do your time and move on with something else, quit pointing out how unfair life is when you were the one cheating in the first place.

 

More importantly, you riding the Magoebaskloof classic tomorrow?

 

Hi TZ

 

Thanks for the response.

As for Magoeba's, sheesh I had no idea it was tomorrow

Enjoy

[EZRider]

 

 

My moral code is justice. You should sit on the other end of an inquiry where "an outcome" is being sought that benefits a commercial interest rather than the truth. I believe Lance Armstrong doped. That there are people who claim he was involved with their doping or the cause of it is suspicious because they have a commercial interest at heart which includes selling a version of the the truth.

I am NOT the madding crowd standing around with pitch forks, tar and hot calling "burn him, burn him!" My moral code says give a man a fair trial,even if he has not been entirely fair with you. I am better than him. I am the bigger man.

 

 

 

My question is that when you change the rules to suit an outcome, where does it end. Your morals says "win at all costs" and I do not subscribe to that. My moral code says win fairly. History shows that cheats always come undone and if LA is the cheat he is believed to be he will get away with it to a point.

What we have here is a group of losers who could not win fairly pointing a finger at someone they claim to have won unfairly. It is interesting that those who are most hard done by e.g . Cadel Evans, have said nothing but have accepted the past as the past and that cannot be changed. That shows true class and a strength of character beyond that which most has showed.

 

If we the cyclist choses to build a future on further lies then what is the point. The corruption just buries itself a level deeper and it becomes less visible and it appears that that is what the majority are asking for. "Don't let us see it". Sorry but thats the MAdding crowd shouting and I'm not part of that.

 

Al Capone was a real gangster and and was untouchable. eve having people testify against him never got him convicted. In the end, not paying his taxes did.

 

I am a rational person. I know a witch hunt when I see it. Even though they may have actually caught a real witch in this case, there is also the possibility they didn't catch anything because what they're really looking for is now hiding deeper underground. Or maybe they don;t really want to catch anything ...

 

My view on this matter is in conflict with what I believe. The very process of offering exemption to known dopists in exchange for testimony seems like an obvious get out of jail free card. Anyone who does not view that process with suspicion is very clearly in the "Stone him , stone him" mob.

 

Like I said, I believe he is guilty but I would have prefered that he be found guilty by the process so that we could have comfort that the process works. Instead we left with a desired outcome (the distraction) but a process that is completely broken but people are asking us to believe it will be fixed. So would he be found guilty under the fixed process?

 

Your moral code is grounded on the premise that the process is broken. You have formed that premise by choosing one slant of news report over the other.

 

Captain America rather than Batman.

 

Me? I go for Bats. LA has fouled something I love and as THE ambassador it was his friggin duty to be clean. Stone him!

[GoLefty!!]

I have chosen that slant because the process IS broken.

[HappyMartin]

GoLefty!! I frequently disagree with you but so be it. We are different people but what you say about Evans being hard done by and not complaining is a very valid point and an important insight. Find myself becoming a bigger and bigger fan of Evans.

 

Well said

[Jaco-fiets]

Wonder when they will take away Contador's TDF titles? He was implicated in operation Puerto and is a convicted doper. Sure he did not test positive on tour but it seems that does not matter. If a couple of guys turn around and say they saw him dope on tour would that result in them taking the titles away?

 

Im just thinking out loud here

[HappyMartin]

Wonder when they will take away Contador's TDF titles? He was implicated in operation Puerto and is a convicted doper. Sure he did not test positive on tour but it seems that does not matter. If a couple of guys turn around and say they saw him dope on tour would that result in them taking the titles away?

 

Im just thinking out loud here

 

If a bunch of guys, not just 2 or 3 but let's say 20 or most of his team, say they saw him dope and they find he paid like a million bucks to a dodgy doctor and his results went from below 30 in a grand tour to winning, oh let's say 6 on the trot or 7 even then I am sure he will also be stripped of his titles.

[eddy]

The sports law experts seem to have an issue with the process followed by USADA. This is them looking at it from legal perspective.

 

http://bicycling.com/blogs/dailylance/2012/11/01/armstrong-ban-flouted-anti-doping-law-experts/

 

Some expert and professors saying that the impact of not sticking to the 8 - year statute of limitation can damage both their and WADA's credibility.

 

They are NOT defending LA!!! (for those who like to personally insult anybody the questions the process)

 

As always, it pays to look at the facts.

 

First, in every law suit in every court, there is a lawyer who has told his client that the other side is wrong. So a lawyer writing an "opinion" is about as credible as a pro cyclist claiming he was clean;

 

Second, the matter of the statute of limitations was dealt with in the USADA reasoned decision. Perhaps you missed it in your reading, so here is an extract :

 

".VII. THE EIGHT-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOUND IN ARTICLE 17 OF THE CODE WAS SUSPENDED BY MR. ARMSTRONG’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF HIS DOPING AND OTHER WRONGFUL ACTS

In its initial notice letter to Mr. Armstrong, which was incorporated into its charging letter USADA specifically informed Mr. Armstrong that USADA was seeking the disqualification of Mr. Armstrong’s competitive results from August 1, 1998, onward. Mr. Armstrong could have, but did not, challenge USADA’s assertion that the eight year statute of limitations found in the World Anti-Doping Code was suspended by Mr. Armstrong’s conduct. The eight-year statute of limitation found in Article 17 of the Code was suspended by Mr. Armstrong’s fraudulent concealment of his doping. In asserting anti-doping rule violations and disqualifying results older than the eight year limitation period found in Article 17 of the Code, USADA is relying on the well-established principle that the running of a statute of limitation is suspended when the person seeking to assert the statute of limitation defense has subverted the judicial process, such as by fraudulently concealing his wrongful conduct.

The eight-year statute of limitation found in Article 17 of the Code is not absolute. As the CAS panel in CAS 2005/C/841 CONI found, the “interruption, suspension, expiry or extension of such [eight-year] time-bar . . . . should be dealt with in the context of the principles of private law of the country where the interested sports authority is domiciled.” (CONI, ¶ 78) As the anti-doping organization conducting results management, USADA is the “interested party” in this case. Thus, the statute of limitations issue should be analyzed according to U.S. law. Under U.S. law, the running of a statute of limitation is suspended when a person has fraudulently concealed his conduct: “one who wrongfully conceals material facts and thereby prevents discovery of his wrong . . . is not permitted to assert the statute of limitations as a bar to an action against him, thus taking advantage of his own wrong, until the expiration of the fullstatutory period from the time when the facts were discovered or should, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered.” (Pacific Electric Co., 310 F.2d 271, at 277 (quoting 34 Am.Jur. 188)) As detailed in Section VII above, Mr. Armstrong fraudulently concealed his doping from USADA in many ways, including lying under oath in the SCA case; lying in the 2000 French judicial investigation; intimidating witnesses; and soliciting false affidavits. Mr. Armstrong cannot benefit from the running of a statute of limitation when a violation would have been asserted by USADA earlier but for his fraudulent concealment.

Armstrong’s affirmative actions to cover up his doping and subvert the judicial process clearly constitute the kind of fraudulent concealment sufficient to suspend the running of the statute of limitation under U.S. law. A recent American Arbitration Association decision in a doping case addressed both the general principle that an athlete who fraudulently conceals doping cannot profit from that fraud by claiming that the statute of limitations has run, and the specific situation where the panel suspended the statute of limitation because the athlete denied under oath that he had doped. (USADA v Hellebuyck, AAA Case No. 77 190 168 11, Jan 30, 2012) Similarly, under U.S. law, Armstrong should not be allowed to claim the benefit of a statute of limitation where his doping has been concealed, and the judicial process subverted, by his lying under oath and other affirmative actions which precluded the earlier discovery of his doping by USADA"

 

Quite well argued, but if they were wrong, why did LA not go to arbitration and claim it, he never was shy in litigating before?

[Lucky Luke.]

Anyone seen the South Park JC / LA episode yet? Funny stuff

 

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/vtboyt/belarus-bracelets

[Witkop]

As always, it pays to look at the facts.

 

First, in every law suit in every court, there is a lawyer who has told his client that the other side is wrong. So a lawyer writing an "opinion" is about as credible as a pro cyclist claiming he was clean;

 

Second, the matter of the statute of limitations was dealt with in the USADA reasoned decision. Perhaps you missed it in your reading, so here is an extract :

 

".VII. THE EIGHT-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOUND IN ARTICLE 17 OF THE CODE WAS SUSPENDED BY MR. ARMSTRONG’S FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF HIS DOPING AND OTHER WRONGFUL ACTS

In its initial notice letter to Mr. Armstrong, which was incorporated into its charging letter USADA specifically informed Mr. Armstrong that USADA was seeking the disqualification of Mr. Armstrong’s competitive results from August 1, 1998, onward. Mr. Armstrong could have, but did not, challenge USADA’s assertion that the eight year statute of limitations found in the World Anti-Doping Code was suspended by Mr. Armstrong’s conduct. The eight-year statute of limitation found in Article 17 of the Code was suspended by Mr. Armstrong’s fraudulent concealment of his doping. In asserting anti-doping rule violations and disqualifying results older than the eight year limitation period found in Article 17 of the Code, USADA is relying on the well-established principle that the running of a statute of limitation is suspended when the person seeking to assert the statute of limitation defense has subverted the judicial process, such as by fraudulently concealing his wrongful conduct.

The eight-year statute of limitation found in Article 17 of the Code is not absolute. As the CAS panel in CAS 2005/C/841 CONI found, the “interruption, suspension, expiry or extension of such [eight-year] time-bar . . . . should be dealt with in the context of the principles of private law of the country where the interested sports authority is domiciled.” (CONI, ¶ 78) As the anti-doping organization conducting results management, USADA is the “interested party” in this case. Thus, the statute of limitations issue should be analyzed according to U.S. law. Under U.S. law, the running of a statute of limitation is suspended when a person has fraudulently concealed his conduct: “one who wrongfully conceals material facts and thereby prevents discovery of his wrong . . . is not permitted to assert the statute of limitations as a bar to an action against him, thus taking advantage of his own wrong, until the expiration of the fullstatutory period from the time when the facts were discovered or should, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered.” (Pacific Electric Co., 310 F.2d 271, at 277 (quoting 34 Am.Jur. 188)) As detailed in Section VII above, Mr. Armstrong fraudulently concealed his doping from USADA in many ways, including lying under oath in the SCA case; lying in the 2000 French judicial investigation; intimidating witnesses; and soliciting false affidavits. Mr. Armstrong cannot benefit from the running of a statute of limitation when a violation would have been asserted by USADA earlier but for his fraudulent concealment.

Armstrong’s affirmative actions to cover up his doping and subvert the judicial process clearly constitute the kind of fraudulent concealment sufficient to suspend the running of the statute of limitation under U.S. law. A recent American Arbitration Association decision in a doping case addressed both the general principle that an athlete who fraudulently conceals doping cannot profit from that fraud by claiming that the statute of limitations has run, and the specific situation where the panel suspended the statute of limitation because the athlete denied under oath that he had doped. (USADA v Hellebuyck, AAA Case No. 77 190 168 11, Jan 30, 2012) Similarly, under U.S. law, Armstrong should not be allowed to claim the benefit of a statute of limitation where his doping has been concealed, and the judicial process subverted, by his lying under oath and other affirmative actions which precluded the earlier discovery of his doping by USADA"

 

Quite well argued, but if they were wrong, why did LA not go to arbitration and claim it, he never was shy in litigating before?

my point exactly, well almost