Lance Armstrong vs. USADA

[Rocksteadyeddie]

el stovey said:

Rocksteadyeddie said:

As was the article that was linked to. Hence the question.

Er OK, the federal case was dropped through lack of evidence, the USADA case operated in a completely different way and isn't a criminal prosecution. USADA can act pretty much how they want as they are a kind of quasi governmental body. They can proceed with evidence and testimonies that wouldn't be admissible in a federal case.

Dropped through lack of evidence at 20 minutes notice, with Jeff Novitsky apparently being "told" to drop it. At the risk of getting all "tin hat" it has a certain whiff about it. I take your point about admissibility of evidence though.

[DJRC]

JuniorD said:

Even if you think the case against him is weak, the case in defence is even weaker. There's only so much that can be batted away. I suspect that the holes in the dyke will only multiply when more people bring forth evidence. There must be a tonne more people with something to tell. It could take years, but it will come.

WHAT CASE????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

You still dont get it do you? You think this is about drugs and sport. It isnt!

I dont understand how ppl think this is anything to do with sport! Its *never* been about sport, cycling or doping.

[Silver993tt]

el stovey said:

USADA can act pretty much how they want as they are a kind of quasi governmental body. They can proceed with evidence and testimonies that wouldn't be admissible in a federal case.

Exactly, so they don't have any legally binding evidence whatsoever. They haven't got a chance of proving LA with anything and they never will have. Sabre rattling at its most desperate since they will never admit they've got it so wrong.

[anonymous-user]

Silver993tt said:

Exactly, so they don't have any legally binding evidence whatsoever. They haven't got a chance of proving LA with anything and they never will have. Sabre rattling at its most desperate since they will never admit they've got it so wrong.

I think you're missing the point, it's not a criminal case. They don't NEED evidence that would stand up in a court. They're not in court. This is a proceeding to 'charge' him with doping and banning him. That's why he's not in prison or being fined at the moment. They haven't got anything wrong at all, USADA are the accepted body responsible for catching dopers, which clearly they have done following the laid out and established procedures accepted by WADA. All that's left now is for the UCI to accept the findings (which shows them to be corrupt and dishonest) and that's the case closed.

The federal case earlier in the year was a criminal case regarding fraud against the government (us postal service) as a sponsor which was given up due to lack of evidence.

The evidence and testemony allowed in each case is completely different thank god otherwise a bullying lying cheat would still have avoided being caught.

[anonymous-user]

JuniorD said:

So, are you going to stop talking in riddles and tell us what 'this' is about?

Aliens. If its in America, it always comes round to Aliens eventually.

[WeirdNeville]

pablo said:

JuniorD said:

So, are you going to stop talking in riddles and tell us what 'this' is about?

Aliens. If its in America, it always comes round to Aliens eventually.

Or the illuminati.

I would also like to know how a man taking drugs to win bike races isn't about drugs, sport or cycling.

[Derek Smith]

London424 said:

My view is that with the evidence as presented in the report it wouldn't be enough to convict him in the law courts.

I'm not sure what else you need over and above the eye-witness accounts of 11 other riders, the association with a man condemned for the same sort of thing and lots of circumstantial evidence.

The only defence tht LA has used - so far - is that he has never failed a drugs test and this looks shaky to say the least.

I used to feel sick before going into court to give evidence. If I was in this case, I'd be on a high.

[Rocksteadyeddie]

Derek Smith said:

London424 said:

My view is that with the evidence as presented in the report it wouldn't be enough to convict him in the law courts.

I'm not sure what else you need over and above the eye-witness accounts of 11 other riders, the association with a man condemned for the same sort of thing and lots of circumstantial evidence.

The only defence tht LA has used - so far - is that he has never failed a drugs test and this looks shaky to say the least.

I used to feel sick before going into court to give evidence. If I was in this case, I'd be on a high.

If you haven't already done so watch his sworn testimony from the SCA case. As a total amateur internet jockey who knows nothing about these things he looked very uneasy under pressure, and struggled to control his emotions. I suspect a decent prosecution lawyer would have him in knots, particularly if LA had already had to sit and hear teammates after teammate, and friend and friend look him in the eye and tell him he doped.

[Derek Smith]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

If you haven't already done so watch his sworn testimony from the SCA case. As a total amateur internet jockey who knows nothing about these things he looked very uneasy under pressure, and struggled to control his emotions. I suspect a decent prosecution lawyer would have him in knots, particularly if LA had already had to sit and hear teammates after teammate, and friend and friend look him in the eye and tell him he doped.

I don't think it will get to that. LA's lawyers will look for ways to avoid courts or judicial enquiries where evidence is sworn. Perjury is such a harsh word, as is the likely penalty. Much safer to fight it out with press releases.

He's going through the 'normal' procedures, suggesting a conspiracy against him, that sort of thing. This gives him an excuse not to cooperate with the ADA. Then there's the suggestion he'll use a lie detector, which is not sworn of course. Anyone with experience of drugs should be able to beat a lie detector. Diversionary tactics, but proven ones. The longer it is dragged out the longer the public have to forget the process and that he's taken drugs. Damage limitation.

He's giving those who want to believe he is honest every opportunity to do so. The Nike revelation is rather interesting but they won't push it of course so it will be forgotten by everyone except those who've read up on it.

Hamilton's book was out of stock at a local bookshop and I've had to order it. The girl on the counter said that there had been a 'rush' on it and they'd sold their last order of 20 books in a couple of weeks. So perhpas the truth will remain out there.

[epom]

Its not about sport, cyclng or doping ?? Right thats me out, I'm lost

[Nom de ploom]

surely the first person under the lie detector test should be lance.

that would save an awful lot of time and effort.

[London424]

Derek Smith said:

London424 said:

My view is that with the evidence as presented in the report it wouldn't be enough to convict him in the law courts.

I'm not sure what else you need over and above the eye-witness accounts of 11 other riders, the association with a man condemned for the same sort of thing and lots of circumstantial evidence.

The only defence tht LA has used - so far - is that he has never failed a drugs test and this looks shaky to say the least.

I used to feel sick before going into court to give evidence. If I was in this case, I'd be on a high.

It is just my opinion with no experience of the legal system. The only reason that I can think of the Federal case not progressing would be because they didn't think they could secure a conviction.

Assuming that the testimony would be allowed (I've got no idea if it would or wouldn't).

The 11 riders could testify, and the cross-examination would be along the lines of "so you admit to lying and cheating over 15 years, yet we are supposed to believe you are telling the truth now". "Isn't it true that in testifying against LA that you cut a deal to continue your career/sell books etc".

The defence team would then have 11 other riders that could testify that they weren't pressured, didn't see anything, have never been linked to doping and act as strong character references.

As I've said before, I think he's guilty. I just don't think it would be as cut and dried in the court of law as the report makes it look.

[DJRC]

epom said:

Its not about sport, cyclng or doping ?? Right thats me out, I'm lost

Its about power, control, ego, money.

Right now its about perjury and multiple financial investigations into Livestrong...because you can bet your arse there are several lawyers already scrambling to do so.

Sport isnt important. Money is. The trouble with the folk on here is that most are basically nice guys, fairly honourable, fairly middle class with middle England values. You arent s and everything about this issue is about guys who are complete and utter s.

The sport aspect was only ever a sideshow.

[London424]

Rocksteadyeddie said:

Derek Smith said:

London424 said:

My view is that with the evidence as presented in the report it wouldn't be enough to convict him in the law courts.

I'm not sure what else you need over and above the eye-witness accounts of 11 other riders, the association with a man condemned for the same sort of thing and lots of circumstantial evidence.

The only defence tht LA has used - so far - is that he has never failed a drugs test and this looks shaky to say the least.

I used to feel sick before going into court to give evidence. If I was in this case, I'd be on a high.

If you haven't already done so watch his sworn testimony from the SCA case. As a total amateur internet jockey who knows nothing about these things he looked very uneasy under pressure, and struggled to control his emotions. I suspect a decent prosecution lawyer would have him in knots, particularly if LA had already had to sit and hear teammates after teammate, and friend and friend look him in the eye and tell him he doped.

That would assume that he would testify. He might not in a defense case.

[Lost_BMW]

DJRC said:

epom said:

Its not about sport, cyclng or doping ?? Right thats me out, I'm lost

Its about power, control, ego, money.

Right now its about perjury and multiple financial investigations into Livestrong...because you can bet your arse there are several lawyers already scrambling to do so.

Sport isnt important. Money is. The trouble with the folk on here is that most are basically nice guys, fairly honourable, fairly middle class with middle England values. You arent s and everything about this issue is about guys who are complete and utter s.

The sport aspect was only ever a sideshow.

Well thank god that's cleared up then!

[Vocal Minority]

Polygraph tests? Has it really come to this? A good lawyer would immediately look to US V Scheffer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sche...

Where it was ruled that polygraph tests are not admissable in court as they cannot be deemd reliable. Lance Armstrong can afford good lawyers. As such this is just a publicity stunt. Maybe he is playing on the common misaprehention that lie detector tests are reliable. They will think that he must be innocent if he is prepared to do one - all the while Armstrong knows it won't happen as everyone involved knows that to do one would be absurd. But the general population will not see it that way.

I have to say, up until recently I was of the opinion that Armstrong was innocent. I wished to believe it so I did. I have to say the past few weeks have been pretty heart breaking.

I havbe to say, to my eyes, to argue this is about egos and the guy at the USADA just wanting 'to take Lance down', and that there is no case to answer doesn't stack up logically. They argue there is no smoking gun (I presume they mean a failed test). Well, Pantani, Riis and Ullrich are 3 examples of competitors generally believed to be up to their eyeballs in the stuff who never failed a test to my knowledge. Hamilton's testimony explains how they had ways and means of avoiding positive results. There is even allegations of supressed positive tests, but not enough evidence on these to take it further.

I don't understand how eyewitness accounts are being dismissed so out of handidly either. They seem to be bread and butter evidence for court cases in Britain and the US, so why should they not be for non-court enquiry like this one? OK they aren't 'written confessions' but so what? They are matters of public record now, which they have publically testified to making. What's the difference that they didn't write it down?

I also fail to believe how this can be a grand conspiracy, becasue of one agents ambition. So they got 11 or 12 of Armstrongs former associates, and other members of the peleton at the time to testify publically against him and co-ordinated one really big lie? The implication there is that not one, NOT ONE, of his associates - friends - thought to defend him or blow the whistle on this conspiracy? This doesn't ring alarm bells? It's not like the USADA could scare them into not defending him, the consequences for them coming forward are already happening - Levi Lepheimer has just been sacked for a start - how would defending Armstrong, if it was the truth, hurt them? Even if someone turned down the opportunity to 'assist' the USADA, why are they not now coming forward?

Maybe it wouldn't amount to proof in a federal court. However, there is enough evidence to suggest it was the case. I didn't want to believe it but I don't see how I have a choice.

Either way, a bloody lie detector test isn't going to do any good.

[Derek Smith]

London424 said:

It is just my opinion with no experience of the legal system. The only reason that I can think of the Federal case not progressing would be because they didn't think they could secure a conviction.

Assuming that the testimony would be allowed (I've got no idea if it would or wouldn't).

The 11 riders could testify, and the cross-examination would be along the lines of "so you admit to lying and cheating over 15 years, yet we are supposed to believe you are telling the truth now". "Isn't it true that in testifying against LA that you cut a deal to continue your career/sell books etc".

The defence team would then have 11 other riders that could testify that they weren't pressured, didn't see anything, have never been linked to doping and act as strong character references.

As I've said before, I think he's guilty. I just don't think it would be as cut and dried in the court of law as the report makes it look.

I'm not sure it is the function of the ASA to prosecute. They've appear to have fulfilled their remit in this case. It is now up to someone else to view the evidence and see what is to be done.

[TedMaul]

DJRC said:

epom said:

Its not about sport, cyclng or doping ?? Right thats me out, I'm lost

Its about power, control, ego, money.

Right now its about perjury and multiple financial investigations into Livestrong...because you can bet your arse there are several lawyers already scrambling to do so.

Sport isnt important. Money is. The trouble with the folk on here is that most are basically nice guys, fairly honourable, fairly middle class with middle England values. You arent s and everything about this issue is about guys who are complete and utter s.

The sport aspect was only ever a sideshow.

Can't argue with that and its why restoring faith will be so difficult because the attitude will prevail, even if the personel (riders, teams, uCI) change

[London424]

Derek Smith said:

London424 said:

It is just my opinion with no experience of the legal system. The only reason that I can think of the Federal case not progressing would be because they didn't think they could secure a conviction.

Assuming that the testimony would be allowed (I've got no idea if it would or wouldn't).

The 11 riders could testify, and the cross-examination would be along the lines of "so you admit to lying and cheating over 15 years, yet we are supposed to believe you are telling the truth now". "Isn't it true that in testifying against LA that you cut a deal to continue your career/sell books etc".

The defence team would then have 11 other riders that could testify that they weren't pressured, didn't see anything, have never been linked to doping and act as strong character references.

As I've said before, I think he's guilty. I just don't think it would be as cut and dried in the court of law as the report makes it look.

I'm not sure it is the function of the ASA to prosecute. They've appear to have fulfilled their remit in this case. It is now up to someone else to view the evidence and see what is to be done.

I agree. My whole point was in relation to the Federal case that was dropped and the reasoning behind it. They obviously had the view that of admissible evidence and the testimony against LA of proven and admitted cheats and liars that they wouldn't be able to secure a conviction.

The USADA report doesn't need to pass that test. They could have written that LA was the Tony Montanna of the pro tour, taking out rivals etc if they wanted. It would then be for LA to challenge this.

With what is in the report we all know he won't be taking it anywhere near a court and he will be keeping his fingers crossed that it blows over. (Not likely IMO).

[Chris Stott]

London424 said:

With what is in the report we all know he won't be taking it anywhere near a court and he will be keeping his fingers crossed that it blows over. (Not likely IMO).

This is spot on.

LA's strategy is to try and cast doubt, and then back off and hope it just goes away.

I'm no legal expert, so I'll hold off commenting on the strength of a USADA criminal prosecution, but it does seem plausable that SCA could take him to court to recover their £7 million.