Judge dismisses Armstrong's case against USADA

On Aug 22, 8:50*pm, TheCoz wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:09*am, raamman wrote:









On Aug 21, 10:35*am, Randall wrote:

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:18 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:01 am, Randall wrote:
Things don't look good for Lance. Lance has very little chance of
winning with the USADA. Lance's only hope is either to appeal to
higher court or the CAS

He probably has no appeal to the CAS until AFTER the initial
arbitration has taken place, and there is little basis for an appeal
to a "higher" court since the judge, as one basis for his decision,
simply declined to exercise his discretion to grant the equitable
relief (injunction) LA had requested.
DR

Yes sorry, I forgot to mention that Lance cannot appeal to the CAS
until after his USADA arbitration hearing. The problem is that the
USADA is acting as judge, jury and prosecutor. The charges in Lance's
case are vague enough to ensure a plausible guilty finding. The CAS
seems biased as well, but I have not see enough evidence to validate
this.

Personally I think Lance should have had the chance to have his case
heard in court. In the end I think Lance will lose and this will be
travesty for cycling.

the fallout will be the end of livestrong and its help for cancer
sufferers and their families- which I have heard has been very
important. I think it is almost insane that in the name of fairness to
other atheletes the lynch mob is going to crucify Lance and pull the
rug out from under livestrong and those who need their services. the
lives destroyed by cancer are far more important than the integrity of
any sport

I wouldn't think Livestrong would be affected too much. I see it as a
whole different business than cycling and only LA is connected to it
from his development of the program. He associated cycling to it due
to his success in cycling and used cycling for advertisement purpose
only. If LA is found guilty some revenue may be lost, and a few people
may shy away from it's service. But it is a big operation and has done
well for the patients who need it to desolve it due to LA's bad
judgments in life. It will probably pull Lance from it's main focus
and use other venues to help promote it's services.
Coz

I think the important thing to remember here is "which of the other
dopers are going to get the TdF wins?".
I don't have the link at hand but I understand there is only one "non-
doper" (a rider not convicted, associated, etc. with doping) out of
all the top ten finishers on GC in the years Lance won the TdF.

Its = possessive, it's a contraction of "it is". Contrary, but such is
English, the Language. Blame it on D. Crockett, he flies the flag.
--D-y

atriage wrote:
That's a troll...right? I mean surely you don't actually believe that ****?

LANCE has two guns and a Philly sucks T shirt.

Fred Flintstein wrote:
I think the guy that is worried about fallout is George Hincapie.
The guy that has his name on his business.

As I think about it, Vaughters might be losing sleep also. But that's
the price he pays for all that 'race clean' hypocrisy when your guys
are loading up like everybody else.

Just so long as there's no Tailwind involved.

Randall wrote:

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:18 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:01 am, Randall wrote:
Things don't look good for Lance. Lance has very little chance of
winning with the USADA. Lance's only hope is either to appeal to
higher court or the CAS

He probably has no appeal to the CAS until AFTER the initial
arbitration has taken place, and there is little basis for an appeal
to a "higher" court since the judge, as one basis for his decision,
simply declined to exercise his discretion to grant the equitable
relief (injunction) LA had requested.
DR

Yes sorry, I forgot to mention that Lance cannot appeal to the CAS
until after his USADA arbitration hearing. The problem is that the
USADA is acting as judge, jury and prosecutor. The charges in Lance's
case are vague enough to ensure a plausible guilty finding. The CAS
seems biased as well, but I have not see enough evidence to validate
this.

What the **** are you talking about? USADA is the prosecutor, not the
jury or the judge. The American Arbitration Association is the judge and
jury. Sounds you've been reading too many of Fabio's press releases.

Magilla

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 13:45:38 -0400, Magilla Gorilla
wrote:

Randall wrote:

Yes sorry, I forgot to mention that Lance cannot appeal to the CAS
until after his USADA arbitration hearing. The problem is that the
USADA is acting as judge, jury and prosecutor. The charges in Lance's
case are vague enough to ensure a plausible guilty finding. The CAS
seems biased as well, but I have not see enough evidence to validate
this.

What the **** are you talking about? USADA is the prosecutor, not the
jury or the judge. The American Arbitration Association is the judge and
jury. Sounds you've been reading too many of Fabio's press releases.

Magilla

That's my call as well. I don't know how USADA can say they can strip
Lonestar of his tour titles and prize money without first having the
panel of arbitrators finding him guilty of at least some of the
charges and making an award for such. I'd think USADA should still
have to put on its case and present its evidence. If Lonestar doesn't
participate in the arbitration, that's his call. Certainly wouldn't be
the first time a case was heard ex parte.

But I think the appearance of fairness (plus we'd all get to hear the
witnesses/evidence) demands that the arbitration process still has to
run its course.

-------------------------------
John Dacey
Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
Our 29th year
http://businesscycles.com
-------------------------------

--D-y wrote:

On Aug 22, 8:50*pm, TheCoz wrote:
On Aug 21, 10:09*am, raamman wrote:









On Aug 21, 10:35*am, Randall wrote:

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:18 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:01 am, Randall wrote:
Things don't look good for Lance. Lance has very little chance of
winning with the USADA. Lance's only hope is either to appeal to
higher court or the CAS

He probably has no appeal to the CAS until AFTER the initial
arbitration has taken place, and there is little basis for an appeal
to a "higher" court since the judge, as one basis for his decision,
simply declined to exercise his discretion to grant the equitable
relief (injunction) LA had requested.
DR

Yes sorry, I forgot to mention that Lance cannot appeal to the CAS
until after his USADA arbitration hearing. The problem is that the
USADA is acting as judge, jury and prosecutor. The charges in Lance's
case are vague enough to ensure a plausible guilty finding. The CAS
seems biased as well, but I have not see enough evidence to validate
this.

Personally I think Lance should have had the chance to have his case
heard in court. In the end I think Lance will lose and this will be
travesty for cycling.

the fallout will be the end of livestrong and its help for cancer
sufferers and their families- which I have heard has been very
important. I think it is almost insane that in the name of fairness to
other atheletes the lynch mob is going to crucify Lance and pull the
rug out from under livestrong and those who need their services. the
lives destroyed by cancer are far more important than the integrity of
any sport

I wouldn't think Livestrong would be affected too much. I see it as a
whole different business than cycling and only LA is connected to it
from his development of the program. He associated cycling to it due
to his success in cycling and used cycling for advertisement purpose
only. If LA is found guilty some revenue may be lost, and a few people
may shy away from it's service. But it is a big operation and has done
well for the patients who need it to desolve it due to LA's bad
judgments in life. It will probably pull Lance from it's main focus
and use other venues to help promote it's services.
Coz

I think the important thing to remember here is "which of the other
dopers are going to get the TdF wins?".
I don't have the link at hand but I understand there is only one "non-
doper" (a rider not convicted, associated, etc. with doping) out of
all the top ten finishers on GC in the years Lance won the TdF.

Its = possessive, it's a contraction of "it is". Contrary, but such is
English, the Language. Blame it on D. Crockett, he flies the flag.
--D-y

The rules already cover this. The winner is the cyclist who finished behind
Lance. And if that rider was also DQ'ed, then the winner is the next rider.
There's no debate about how this is done.

Magilla

On 24/08/2012 6:45 PM, Magilla Gorilla wrote:
Randall wrote:

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:18 AM, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:01 am, Randall wrote:
Things don't look good for Lance. Lance has very little chance of
winning with the USADA. Lance's only hope is either to appeal to
higher court or the CAS

He probably has no appeal to the CAS until AFTER the initial
arbitration has taken place, and there is little basis for an appeal
to a "higher" court since the judge, as one basis for his decision,
simply declined to exercise his discretion to grant the equitable
relief (injunction) LA had requested.
DR

Yes sorry, I forgot to mention that Lance cannot appeal to the CAS
until after his USADA arbitration hearing. The problem is that the
USADA is acting as judge, jury and prosecutor. The charges in Lance's
case are vague enough to ensure a plausible guilty finding. The CAS
seems biased as well, but I have not see enough evidence to validate
this.

What the **** are you talking about? USADA is the prosecutor, not the
jury or the judge. The American Arbitration Association is the judge and
jury. Sounds you've been reading too many of Fabio's press releases.

Magilla


Does the USADA run world cycling? Or is that body the Union Cycliste
Internationale?

Quote:

"The UCI notes Lance Armstrong’s decision not to proceed to arbitration
in the case that USADA has brought against him.

The UCI recognises that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip
Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a
lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognises the World
Anti-Doping Code.

Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the
Anti-Doping Organisation with results management responsibility shall
submit to the parties concerned (Mr Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned
decision explaining the action taken.

As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it
will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further
comment to make."

And nor do I. Ca va?

Still enjoying the Vuelta!


--
Chris

'Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it
every six months.'

(Oscar Wilde.)