Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 119
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York, NY
    I've finally come around to the idea that if he did use PED's and evaded detection and is retired and doing good works, then surely there must be something else for the enforcement guys to do with their time. Assuming they were able to turn his teammates, well, that STILL won't prove anything (though it does slant public perception and will significantly hurt his fundraising).

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by johnb View Post
    I've finally come around to the idea that if he did use PED's and evaded detection and is retired and doing good works, then surely there must be something else for the enforcement guys to do with their time. Assuming they were able to turn his teammates, well, that STILL won't prove anything (though it does slant public perception and will significantly hurt his fundraising).
    I agree with this.

    And still come back to the fundamental problem -- even if they show Armstrong doped, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the guy who finished second did as well. So, you pull Armstrong's jerseys to give them to another doper who you're not going to investigate?

    This does seem like a personal vendetta. At some point, what's done is done.
    "Enjoy every sandwich" -- Warren Zevon

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    I agree with this.

    And still come back to the fundamental problem -- even if they show Armstrong doped, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that the guy who finished second did as well. So, you pull Armstrong's jerseys to give them to another doper who you're not going to investigate?

    This does seem like a personal vendetta. At some point, what's done is done.
    Amen!

    Basically, every testing agency seems to be saying - since he didn't get caught with the tests that we had in place and thought were going to catch the cheaters, we will find another way to catch this particular alleged cheater. We don't care about the others that may have gotten away with something, just this particular person who won le Tour 7 times and can reportedly be somewhat of a jerk.

    And have they even thought about the poor bookies? Are they going to start waiting 5 years or 10 years before paying out on bets on le Tour winners? If Armstrong is stripped of any Tour titles, will the bookies want their money back to pay to whoever bet on the guy coming in 2nd?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Watching carolina Go To HELL!
    Quote Originally Posted by DukieInKansas View Post
    Amen!

    Basically, every testing agency seems to be saying - since he didn't get caught with the tests that we had in place and thought were going to catch the cheaters, we will find another way to catch this particular alleged cheater. We don't care about the others that may have gotten away with something, just this particular person who won le Tour 7 times and can reportedly be somewhat of a jerk.

    And have they even thought about the poor bookies? Are they going to start waiting 5 years or 10 years before paying out on bets on le Tour winners? If Armstrong is stripped of any Tour titles, will the bookies want their money back to pay to whoever bet on the guy coming in 2nd?
    Is there a "statute of limitations" for bookies, or legitimate betting institutions, having to pay formerly non-winning bets? How would they ever get back the money they did pay out from the new losers? They couldn't. No, unless there was considerable muscle and threat of force involved, I doubt any old bets would be paid off.
    Ozzie, your paradigm of optimism!

    Go To Hell carolina, Go To Hell!
    9F 9F 9F
    http://www.EGLEW.com


  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Lance strikes back at USADA... with a lawsuit.

    ''The process (USADA) seek to force upon Lance Armstrong is not a fair process and truth is not its goal,'' his lawsuit says, calling the USADA process a ''kangaroo court.''

    ...

    Armstrong's lawsuit says he faces irreparable harm if the case is allowed to go forward to arbitration because USADA rules prevent him from being able to mount a legitimate defense.

    ''It is a testament to USADA's brazenness and callous disregard for its own mission that it seeks to strip Mr. Armstrong of his life's work,'' the lawsuit says.
    -Jason "500 drug tests passed... it will be hard for the USADA to win in the court of public opinion without any physical evidence" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Lance strikes back at USADA... with a lawsuit.



    -Jason "500 drug tests passed... it will be hard for the USADA to win in the court of public opinion without any physical evidence" Evans

    Lance Armstrong has always been a strong proponent of the maxim "the best defense is a strong offense."

    Especially in court.
    "Enjoy every sandwich" -- Warren Zevon

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Update: Lance's suit tossed temporarily:

    http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/sto...smissed-070912

    Without prejudice, and with right to refile.
    "Enjoy every sandwich" -- Warren Zevon

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of sports teams that disappoint in the playoffs
    Quote Originally Posted by OldPhiKap View Post
    Update: Lance's suit tossed temporarily:

    http://msn.foxsports.com/cycling/sto...smissed-070912

    Without prejudice, and with right to refile.
    Ha! It was dismissed because the suit contained pages and pages talking about Lance's accomplishments and the judge only wanted to read about the legal arguments. How ridiculous by Lance's legal team!!!

    -Jason "I wonder if Lance wanted that stuff included? He is a notorious jerk and incredibly arrogant" Evans
    Don't ask me why, but my mother is making me Tweet. Says it will be good for my career. So, follow my ramblings, mostly on the film industry, @TVFilmTalk

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Ha! It was dismissed because the suit contained pages and pages talking about Lance's accomplishments and the judge only wanted to read about the legal arguments. How ridiculous by Lance's legal team!!!

    -Jason "I wonder if Lance wanted that stuff included? He is a notorious jerk and incredibly arrogant" Evans
    This is a lawyer call, designed to give the press something to write. Good for the judge for throwing it out, even though I am pulling for Lance.
    "Enjoy every sandwich" -- Warren Zevon

  10. #50
    The latest -- three former members of the U.S. Postal Service support team (two doctors and a trainer) have received lifetime bans for trafficking in, encouraging the use of and administering PEDs.

    Link.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post

    Ha! It was dismissed because the suit contained pages and pages talking about Lance's accomplishments and the judge only wanted to read about the legal arguments. How ridiculous by Lance's legal team!!!

    -Jason "I wonder if Lance wanted that stuff included? He is a notorious jerk and incredibly arrogant" Evans

    Here is the actual order dismissing the lawsuit. It's short (only three pages), but very pointed -- see, e.g., "This Court is not inclined to indulge Armstrong's desire for publicity, self-aggrandizement, or vilification of Defendants, by sifting through eighty mostly unnecessary pages in search of the few kernels of factual material relevant to his claims."

    Incidentally, the judge in this case, Sam Sparks, is well-known in legal circles for issuing some rather, um.....zesty orders from time to time, like this one. And this one. He has been criticized in some circles for crossing the line from legitimate critiquing of the arguments and conduct of the parties and/or counsel before him to simply beating up on lawyers for his own amusement. One thing's for sure, though -- whether or not you agree with that criticism, he does not suffer fools even a little bit, and he will drop the hammer if he thinks anyone is trying to use his courtroom for grandstanding or publicity-seeking purposes.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    The latest -- three former members of the U.S. Postal Service support team (two doctors and a trainer) have received lifetime bans for trafficking in, encouraging the use of and administering PEDs.

    Link.
    These three were given bans under the same case as Armstrong, they simply chose to not fight the charges:

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/editions/...us-postal-case

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom B. View Post
    One thing's for sure, though -- whether or not you agree with that criticism, he does not suffer fools even a little bit, and he will drop the hammer if he thinks anyone is trying to use his courtroom for grandstanding or publicity-seeking purposes.
    And if Lance's lawyers had done their homework they would have known that.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    I'm going to chime in here, but am pretty busy today, so talking points and thoughts:

    1. Armstrong's request for an injunction has been refiled.

    2. UCI (International cycling fed) came out today and said that they don't understand the sanctions levied against the doc/trainers yesterday. Those docs/trainers are not certified to participate in UCI events, and thus USADA giving them a lifetime ban doesn't do anything... just grandstanding.

    3. Travis Tygart (head of USADA) is a complete d-bag who has a hard-on of hate for Armstrong. Essentially, when the Feds didn't have any evidence, he decided he would unilaterally go after Lance with the mounds and mounds of evidence that no one has been given access to... not UCI, not Lance, not the press. Tygart has been after Armstrong for years and is firmly in the "Lance doped" camp. There isn't anything in the world that angers him more than having failed to catch Armstrong. Lance really is the most tested athlete in the history of athletics, so he either didn't do it, or he had the best masking program in the history of mankind.

    4. The injunction really gets to the heart of the matter for amateur athletes well beyond the Armstrong case. Basically, if this goes through, and mind you, Lance is being brought before a panel made up of USADA employed mediators(!) any athlete needs to be concerned that they can receive a doping ban even when testing clean. For example, let's say Michael Phelps returns to form this summer and kills it at the Olympics, beating Ryan Lochte 3 or 4 times for gold. Lochte can come out two years later and say, "Hey man, Phelps was doping his butt off... I totally saw it like 5 times and he told me how to do it. I didn't but we totally talked about it." That will now be considered evidence. Furthermore, and I truly love this part, according to USADA regs, USADA attorney can draft a statement for each witness that does not have to be based on any interview or deposition with said witness and then have the witness sign it. This can serve as testimony at the hearing AND the witness does not have to be present at the hearing for a cross examination by Armstrong's attorneys. There really is no way that he can win the hearing process. And if a man with this much influence, money and legal power is going to lose, what about general amateur athletes?

    5 For those at USADA who say this is not a witch hunt, someone might need to explain why, after an allegedly 15 year conspiracy of doping and masking involving 3 teams and hundreds of riders, they are only going after one athlete.

    6. The "reduced suspension" in exchange for testimony is truly concerning. Further, the story doesn't hold water since Hincapie is retiring in 6 weeks. If he was going to run, he wasn't selling out Lance (unless he's pissed about Discovery Channel running him down in the Tour a few years ago and denying him the yellow for a day). Something doesn't add up.

    7. USADA just publicly reprimanded Hope Solo for testing positive for a banned diuretic that was ingested in her PMS medication. She said that she unknowingly ingested it in a prescription medication (probably true). However, the decision to publicly reprimand, without suspension, an athlete who has tested positive for a banned substance while attempting to retroactively ban an athlete and strip him of titles on the basis of zero positive tests really seems to undermine USADA's credibility to me.

    8. This whole set of episodes was touched off by Floyd Landis' attempt to blackmail Armstrong and the organizers of the Tour of California to let his continental team into the race after his doping suspension was lifted in 2008. Landis, who denied doping, then admitted doping, then denied it, then admitted it and implicated Lance, will be one of the witnesses that USADA hangs their hat on.
    WWJDD?

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by allenmurray View Post
    And if Lance's lawyers had done their homework they would have known that.
    Lance's lawyers knew exactly what was going to happen with the original complaint. They wanted their public filleting of Tygart and USADA on the record. And now it is.

    Think about this: the original suit, which was tossed, was 80 pages long. The refiled suit, which was filed less than 24 hours later, was 25 pages long. You think they cut 55 pages of text in 24 hours, or do you think they had the real document, which will be considered, ready to go this morning?
    WWJDD?

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    Lance's lawyers knew exactly what was going to happen with the original complaint. They wanted their public filleting of Tygart and USADA on the record. And now it is.

    Think about this: the original suit, which was tossed, was 80 pages long. The refiled suit, which was filed less than 24 hours later, was 25 pages long. You think they cut 55 pages of text in 24 hours, or do you think they had the real document, which will be considered, ready to go this morning?
    Now, I'm just a dirt lawyer, but that strikes me as a horrible litigation strategy. Unless Armstrong gets a different judge this time around, he will be requesting an injuction (and a TRO?) -- an equitable remedy up to the discretion of the judge -- from a judge who just tossed his papers.

    Thoughts from litigators who actually know what they're talking about?

    As to your second question, it is plausible to cut 55 pages of text in 24 hours. You can get a lot of legal work done in 24 hours. That said, your suggestion may be more plausible.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Quote Originally Posted by cato View Post
    Now, I'm just a dirt lawyer, but that strikes me as a horrible litigation strategy. Unless Armstrong gets a different judge this time around, he will be requesting an injuction (and a TRO?) -- an equitable remedy up to the discretion of the judge -- from a judge who just tossed his papers.

    Thoughts from litigators who actually know what they're talking about?

    As to your second question, it is plausible to cut 55 pages of text in 24 hours. You can get a lot of legal work done in 24 hours. That said, your suggestion may be more plausible.
    Trench trial lawyer here. I think Lance's lawyers drafted something that told the press story they wanted, and hoped it would fly with the court. A court will not usually strike a pleading sua sponte as a farce without a motion from the opposing party. Even if it happens (like here) the dismissal is without prejudice and with right to amend.

    I hate when folks pull that junk -- not my style -- but I am more familiar with this than I wish I was. We call this "big city b s" but it is becoming more common than it should be.
    "Enjoy every sandwich" -- Warren Zevon

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by MulletMan View Post
    I'm going to chime in here, but am pretty busy today, so talking points and thoughts:

    1. Armstrong's request for an injunction has been refiled.

    2. UCI (International cycling fed) came out today and said that they don't understand the sanctions levied against the doc/trainers yesterday. Those docs/trainers are not certified to participate in UCI events, and thus USADA giving them a lifetime ban doesn't do anything... just grandstanding.

    3. Travis Tygart (head of USADA) is a complete d-bag who has a hard-on of hate for Armstrong. Essentially, when the Feds didn't have any evidence, he decided he would unilaterally go after Lance with the mounds and mounds of evidence that no one has been given access to... not UCI, not Lance, not the press. Tygart has been after Armstrong for years and is firmly in the "Lance doped" camp. There isn't anything in the world that angers him more than having failed to catch Armstrong. Lance really is the most tested athlete in the history of athletics, so he either didn't do it, or he had the best masking program in the history of mankind.

    4. The injunction really gets to the heart of the matter for amateur athletes well beyond the Armstrong case. Basically, if this goes through, and mind you, Lance is being brought before a panel made up of USADA employed mediators(!) any athlete needs to be concerned that they can receive a doping ban even when testing clean. For example, let's say Michael Phelps returns to form this summer and kills it at the Olympics, beating Ryan Lochte 3 or 4 times for gold. Lochte can come out two years later and say, "Hey man, Phelps was doping his butt off... I totally saw it like 5 times and he told me how to do it. I didn't but we totally talked about it." That will now be considered evidence. Furthermore, and I truly love this part, according to USADA regs, USADA attorney can draft a statement for each witness that does not have to be based on any interview or deposition with said witness and then have the witness sign it. This can serve as testimony at the hearing AND the witness does not have to be present at the hearing for a cross examination by Armstrong's attorneys. There really is no way that he can win the hearing process. And if a man with this much influence, money and legal power is going to lose, what about general amateur athletes?

    5 For those at USADA who say this is not a witch hunt, someone might need to explain why, after an allegedly 15 year conspiracy of doping and masking involving 3 teams and hundreds of riders, they are only going after one athlete.

    6. The "reduced suspension" in exchange for testimony is truly concerning. Further, the story doesn't hold water since Hincapie is retiring in 6 weeks. If he was going to run, he wasn't selling out Lance (unless he's pissed about Discovery Channel running him down in the Tour a few years ago and denying him the yellow for a day). Something doesn't add up.

    7. USADA just publicly reprimanded Hope Solo for testing positive for a banned diuretic that was ingested in her PMS medication. She said that she unknowingly ingested it in a prescription medication (probably true). However, the decision to publicly reprimand, without suspension, an athlete who has tested positive for a banned substance while attempting to retroactively ban an athlete and strip him of titles on the basis of zero positive tests really seems to undermine USADA's credibility to me.

    8. This whole set of episodes was touched off by Floyd Landis' attempt to blackmail Armstrong and the organizers of the Tour of California to let his continental team into the race after his doping suspension was lifted in 2008. Landis, who denied doping, then admitted doping, then denied it, then admitted it and implicated Lance, will be one of the witnesses that USADA hangs their hat on.
    I'm with you on all but #7, Mullet.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham at heart
    Quote Originally Posted by Reisen View Post
    I'm with you on all but #7, Mullet.
    Talk to me, Goose. What part aren't you with me on? I really believe that Solo tested positive by accident. Unfortunately, this is the defense that every person ever hit with a positive test uses. So what authority does USADA have if there's no real metric for "doping".

    In Lance's case 500+ negative tests do not protect him from charges of doping.

    In Solo's case 1 positive test doesn't earn more than a, "Bad girl!".

    It makes USADA appear to be selective in enforcement of their rules and puts the rights of athletes in a precarious position.

    (Or am I missing what you're saying, and you think Solo is a doper?)
    WWJDD?

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by allenmurray View Post

    And if Lance's lawyers had done their homework they would have known that.

    Yes and no. Lance is the plaintiff, remember, so his lawyers would have no way of knowing which judge would be assigned to the case until they actually filed it (I presume there's more than one judge in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas). Some other judges might have let it slide, but they got unlucky and drew the judge who is probably the worst one to get when you file a complaint that's designed more for media consumption than actually giving a "short and plain statement" of your claims.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 01-31-2011, 09:59 PM
  2. The Street Stops Here
    By rthomas in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-17-2011, 02:05 AM
  3. Fighting a speeding ticket
    By BluDevilGal in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-11-2008, 08:49 PM
  4. Lance Armstrong book
    By JStuart in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 06:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •