Jeff, Are you on this site during billable hours for a client? 
Really Bemused by this story....
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
No more billables for me! In house litigation Chief Counsel now...it's all for the public welfare! lol....
No, I am not saying he should go back on his word. I am saying he is totally justified in refusing to defend himself due to the fact that the process is extremely one-sided and there is no way for him to mount a defense. It will be interesting to see what the UCI's final decision is after the USADA's official decision is released. It will also be interesting to see if, after the USADA decision is reached, a suit is brought on to contest the legality of the proceedings and decision.
Ian
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Yes, you are saying he should go back on his word. He agreed to this forum, and those rules, for dispute adjudication. Now that the evidence is stacked up against him, he doesn't want to use the forum he agreed to.
Have you seen the contract he signed? Did it have complete details on the arbitration process? Now that he is retired, is he bound by that contract for current proceedings? Also, what about the claims that the USADA had its own 8 year limitation, which would indicate that they have no authority over his wins from 1999 through 2004. Would that mean they are violating their own contract? Or what about the fact that they are going by blood sample from 2009 and 2010, 4 years after he last won?
Ian
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I'd suggest to you (and am repeating) that you don't know as much about the enforceability of arbitration agreements under US law as the federal court judge who ruled on Armstrong's attempt to renege on his agreement to arbitrate:
Note also that a US federal district court judge disagrees with you, and the prosecutor you cite:
‘‘On balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,’’ Sparks wrote. ‘‘This court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it. Further, Armstrong has ample appellate avenues open to him.’’
Note also that a US federal district court judge disagrees with you, and the prosecutor you cite:
‘‘On balance, the court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,’’ Sparks wrote. ‘‘This court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it. Further, Armstrong has ample appellate avenues open to him.’’
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
He doesn't get a trial in a federal court.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, he has a limited means of appealing the arbitration panel's decision on grounds of fraud or bias but that is it.
There will be no trial in federal court after the federal court refused to stop the arbitration process.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, he has a limited means of appealing the arbitration panel's decision on grounds of fraud or bias but that is it.
There will be no trial in federal court after the federal court refused to stop the arbitration process.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Let me get my head around this...LA was one of the most tested athletes in TDF history. Not one of those tests were positive.... But he must be guilty because everyone in that era was taking drugs.
Oh and his so called best mate said he saw him take banned substances.
Faced with this LA did not fight it but put out a statement that he was not guilty.
Does anyone know how much it would have cost Armstrong to defend his reputation ? I'm guessing it would run into millions.
Maybe he just wants to keep his retirement fund intact.
Oh and his so called best mate said he saw him take banned substances.
Faced with this LA did not fight it but put out a statement that he was not guilty.
Does anyone know how much it would have cost Armstrong to defend his reputation ? I'm guessing it would run into millions.
Maybe he just wants to keep his retirement fund intact.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
*He's got the money
*He's already spent 1000000x what it would cost to do a short one week arbitration on this
*He doesn't want the testimony from the 10 witnesses to come out
It's really pretty simple.
*He's already spent 1000000x what it would cost to do a short one week arbitration on this
*He doesn't want the testimony from the 10 witnesses to come out
It's really pretty simple.
LA is often quoted as saying he was the world's most tested athlete and has never failed a drug test. According to those in professional cycling at the time (see my earlier post) this is not true. He apparently tested positive for corticosteriods in 1999 and for EPO in 2001, and since then 6 of his samples that have been kept in storage for analysis once more accurate test were developed, have also returned positive results. And yes, I know I am reporting hearsay, but LA's throwing in of the towel suggests he know's he is on a losing ticket.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Thanks Jeff, Guilty as charged your honour.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Arbitraiton. Standard is "established by the preponderance of the evidence."
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Thank you once more, but surely the "preponderance of evidence" is the number
Of times he has been tested and found to be clean?
Of times he has been tested and found to be clean?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Ah, so we include tests that were not sophisticated enough to catch the doping, or that he successfully fooled, in determining if he did or not?
Do you know anything about George Hincapie?
Do you know anything about George Hincapie?
This is a direct quote from your source. "The details of what Hincapie, 39, told antidoping authorities remains a mystery" 8th paragraph
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...tant-but-reliable-witness.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/s...tant-but-reliable-witness.html?pagewanted=all
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Lance knows. But he doesn't want you to know.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Give me a break, at the time they were the most sophisticated tests available.
He is guilty because you have made up your mind he must be because he won't spend what is left of his fortune on lawyers.
Re Hincapie I know what I have read, that he is well respected and was a close friend of Armstrong.
I don't know what he told the ADA. And neither do you.
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
It has nothing to do with spending money on lawyers. It has everything to do with when given a chance to defend himself against what appears to be overwhelming evidence of doping, he threw in the towel. He's not a fool. He knows how badly a parade of folks testifying that they saw him dope would make him and his foundation look. This is his best play; smart move, and confirmation he did it.
Like I said, I don't hate the guy although everyone I've known who has come into contact with him says he is a grade A jerk. But that is typical of diven athletes/professionals/whatever. I also think he was just doing what everyone else was doing. So he won in a the era of cheating. It's like the steroids era in baseball. How do you compare those home run records against the mark of those who did it without chemical assitance?
We all know he was better than the other dopers he road against. But the athletes who came before or after? Who knows, which is why his titles shoud be stripped.
Go do some reading on the tests -- or hell, just read the posts above. A significant number of samples from this riding period that tested clean back then were recently re-tested with more sophisticated techniques and came up positive.
Why are you guys so adamant about defending this guy?
Like I said, I don't hate the guy although everyone I've known who has come into contact with him says he is a grade A jerk. But that is typical of diven athletes/professionals/whatever. I also think he was just doing what everyone else was doing. So he won in a the era of cheating. It's like the steroids era in baseball. How do you compare those home run records against the mark of those who did it without chemical assitance?
We all know he was better than the other dopers he road against. But the athletes who came before or after? Who knows, which is why his titles shoud be stripped.
Go do some reading on the tests -- or hell, just read the posts above. A significant number of samples from this riding period that tested clean back then were recently re-tested with more sophisticated techniques and came up positive.
Why are you guys so adamant about defending this guy?
