Is Armstrong plotting to take down the USADA?

@sittingbison - you speak as if you know everything as fact, when really your comments are based on the same assumption based arguments as every other opinion on here. yes, some of what you are saying is based on fact. but you extrapolate those facts to come to far fetched conclusions. understand that this is an opinion piece. so you are entitled to offer your opinion. and be quiet thereafter. you have no authority on the matter.

Most of the evidence is wrapped up in Witness testimony. Given Lance's mafia-rsque history of intimadation and villification of all who oppose him, I think USADA are more than valid in their grounds of withholding information for the moment to protect those who are witnesses (whom we do not know are, despite the supposed leaked names that were given to the media). There's also 2 cases in the US Postal Conspiracy still to go to arbitration, Johan Bruyneel and Pedro Celaya. Evidence coming out before those cases are dealt with would no be fair to the defendants or the plantiff in those cases. Don't understand how a rejection to a fair trial is not an admission of guilt. It's effectively saying lay whatever charges you want on me.

Really? The Spanish Inquisition had independent arbitration hearings? They had US District Court Judges declare that everything is fair and legal? It's amusing, USADA are going through all the proper due processes to this, going through the proper channels, WADA, the Justic System etc. Armstrong goes to the media. Who is seen more positively by the public?

It's a pity there are so few articles centered around facts like this, it really does need to see more light

just because USADA are largely funded by the government does not mean they are a State Actor (ie a government agency). This argument has been tested in court on numerous occasions by the more well funded dopers including Lance in his recent Federal Court injunction, and has NEVER succeeded. The reason they want to prove the USADA is a State Actor is the hearings would then be in court and follow the rules of jurisprudence with much more stringent tests of guilt Lances team of paid liars ultimately did not even bother arguing this point as they knew it would not wash, and focused instead on the jurisdiction once they corrupted Fat Pat to write his drunken slurring letters. Which they failed at miserably. However, Lance specifically did NOT want to go to court as he was actually trying desperately to cover up the evidence (which would all come out in public hearings) and was at risk of perjury (see Marion Jones). He wanted to get the UCI to take over the case where it would be buries by Fat Pat and Hein. You are correct about the funding from USPS. This is why Nvitzky from FDA opened the fraud investigation, as it would be illegal to use federal funds for a systematic team based doping program. It is however NOT illegal to individually dope in USA and Great Britain, although it is in France and Italy. The USADA had precisely nothing to do with these investigations, other than sit in on grand jury testiomony as previously stated. Likewise FDA has nothing to do with the USADA case, but COULD reopen their own investigation now Lance has been found guilty of conspiracy and Team based doping.

WADA code specifically introduced the concept of “non-analytical” rule violations, meaning that a sanction can be applied in cases where there is evidence that an anti-doping rule violation occurred but where there is no positive doping control test. Seeing as there are more than 10 team mates and several others involved who are testifying...

In all honesty Darryl, I and I am sure many other people have a fear in the back of their minds that Lance will wriggle out as he has so often done in the past. If he does I will be the first to congratulate you lol

By state I take it you mean government ? if that is so & I highlighted the point that they are supposedly an independent body largely funded by taxpayers dollars, then why is their funding predominantly from government agencies such as those mentioned in my post & why the endorsement/mandate from Congress ? Regardless, they are an agency which acts to regulate sport, a huge number of which are government funded including the team formerly known as US Postal. Crimin al action has taken place if the doping can be proved, the point of my post entirely.

What a load of HOGWASH.everything you said is come rely untrue, except the one fan bit Juan Fan lol enjoy, you can sit next to Juan Pelota

Complete rubbish, there is no onus. In fact Lances paid liar Herman sent a letter to USADA attorney Boxk threatening legal action if they either sanctioned him or released evidence. So much for who is with holding lol. The last thing Lance wants is be confronted in court, where the evidence comes out and he is open to perjury. Hahaha Marion Jones lol. Anyway, Tygart has said the evidence will be released at appropriate time. Don't forget it's not a witch hunt, as five others are charged, plus the more than ten team mates will be sanctioned if admitting to doping.

Goat, you are missing one salient point. Birotte did not close down the FDA investigation through lack of evidence, it was entirely unexpected by all concerned. Because USADA is not a state actor, they cannot accept any evidence from FDA, in fact it would be a crime to hand it over. The cyclists asked Novitsky to allow Tygart to sit in, as they did not want any discrepancy between GJ and USADA testimony leading to Marion Jones type perjury. USADA is not investigating a crime, FDA is not investigating doping per se (not illegal in USA), but fraud. USADA has no ability or place in the FDA investigation of fraud, if the FDA believes they can reopen their investigation after USADA sanctions Lance, they will do so completely independent of USADA.

Wrong. USADA strips him of results, and bans him. They REPORT their rests to WADA and UCI who can appeal to CAS. They won't .

What a lot of HOGWASH. Lance Armstrong has won the title seven times not forgetting the help of his team around him to do so, how is it over seven years he has not had positive tests taken, is he a magican also, no he is a brilliant athlete who battled cancer and won and continued his carreer to achieve what he has. Is there some jealousy there within his team mates who stated that they have seen him take drugs ?? along with themselves, next they will come out and state that he never had cancer and it was a publicity stunt. Where is the pathology evidence ????, it is all on hearsay and because he has had enough of being branded a drug cheat that is effecting him and his family and has decided not to defend the allegations which would take time and money the wolves are ripping into him like a pack of mongrels. In my books he is innocent until proven guilty and with no pathology evidence they can't and cannot convict a person on hearsay, leave the guy alone and let him get on with his life, if it was me i would do the same thing, he has proven himself and doesn't have to prove anything to anyone anymore. He has got one fan atleast who believes in him, ME.

Armstrong also has the right to reject the arbitration process as it stands because he feels he cannot agree to be bound by the 'award' or determination of the neutral arbitors as is his legal right. That in itself is not & has never been taken as an admission of guilt in any circumstance. It simply means that the party which does not agree wishes to take the matter to a proper court hearing, the other party must then by seek prosecution via correct legal means or restrict itself to punitive action within it's own realm. The whole aim of arbitration is to avoid court & hopefully come to an agreement rather than a judicial decision. The reason the parties have to agree before an arbitration is so they are bound to the decision as they would be if they had faced a court hearing, jurist or bench. In fact you may find that the magical powers are being used more solely by the USADA at this point as they are seeking to sanction a person who has clearly rejected their jurisprudence over him & given that they are obligated to 'invite' him to participate, it is a clear signal that unless he does so any punitive action is taken without his consent. For example, the USADA could, by way of signatory agreement, force the ASO ( organisers of the TDF) or the UCI ( also funding members of the USADA) to strip Armstrong of titles, but they cannot force him to pay any financial penalties nor serve any gaol time. They cannot in effect ban him from any competition outside of forcing a funding member organisation to stop him from competing. Just as an example, if the ASO withdraws its' funding & agreement with the USADA, it is under no obligation whatsoever to strip any titles or ban any competitor by direction of the USADA. The USADA essentially has two options, Armstrong has rejected the offer of arbitration so they can either impose sanction as is their right or seek escalation to a higher authority to prosecute the allegations through normal court proceedings. Remember, arbitration is designed to avoid court proceedings by prior agreement by all parties concerned via their acceptance of the decision of the neutral third party. No-one is bound to go to arbitration & unless the 'prosecuting party' escalates the matter that is the end of it. Armstrong is not guilty simply because he rejects the USADA offer of arbitration. If the USADA imposes sanctions without further prosecution, those sanctions are only valid as far as any organisation recognises them. They are not a legal judgement handed down by a court. They are more akin to your parents grounding you, because they said so without you getting a say, to put it simply. The grey area in the whole issue is that Armstrong was in essence, a Federal employee during his time as a team member of the US Postal Service sponsored team, as were all associated. This was the crux of the investigation by the US Attorney office, which sought to indict on the grounds that Federal funds were mis-used & fraud was committed because US gov't money was used to purchase drugs & equipment to use for doping carried out by the team. They dropped their investigation when they found that they couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt, in the best interests of the public, that this was the case. That they failed to issue a statement or any sort of clarification only adds to the confusion. What it boils down to is this- the USADA proves the doping took place, they are obligated to hand over their findings prior to any prosecution or punitive action to the US Attorneys office in order to avoid prejudicing any action they may take as fraud etc is a more serious criminal offence than doping so that agency may pursue the matter. Once the US Attorney has finished the USADA can step in & put in place their own measures. The trick is, as stated, that the US Attorney needs to be able to prove the link between funding & criminal activity, which it has previously said it cannot ( without clarifying why) which leaves the USADA in the unenviable position of either letting it go or actually proving it but having to hand over their work to someone else to pursue, before they publicly show their proof. This is why I believe that it is Armstrong who has the USADA by the short & curlies, not the other way around. I make no claim to his innocence or guilt, but there is certainly a legal process to follow & at this point it appears that it is the USADA is the party which wishes to circumvent it & achieve a premature outcome rather than Armstrong relying on the goodwill of any true believers. There are no magical powers, but this applies to both sides of the argument. The USADA can impose sanctions which in effect will only be recognised by their funding members, which are numerous & widespread, but they will never be a proven fact in any forum which regards juris prudence as an integral part of its raison de etre. It reduces the USADA to a very powerfu but yet still shallow kangaroo court. If they truly sought justice, for all the reasons listed on their website for example, then the press releases you would be reading from them would be about them handing their evidence to the US Attorney Generals Office for further consideration, rather than any talk of bans or stripping of titles.

My thoughts are the opposite. I think Armstrong has some good legal advice that unless the USADA has 'new' evidence above & beyond that which the US Attorney Generals Office has already reviewed ( & dismissed) then they are stuffed. If they do have such evidence, then they would have been obliged to have already handed it over, thus, the fact that it is the USADA making statements & not the Attorney General (via their District office in California) that there is no such new evidence & thus for all the proclamations of bans & titles stripped, the USADA are engaging in little more than showmanship. My only query at this point is that if that is the case, why hasn't anyone of higher power told them to quit ? I put it down to competing political powers, conflicting jurisdiction & a lack of clarity in who exactly should be able to examine what evidence. We think it should be cut & dried, but already the US Attorney has dropped investigation into the matter based upon their inablity or perceived lack of substantial evidence to gain a conviction into fraud & mis-use of public monies based on doping offences yet the USADA has continued with it's own investigation & feels confident that it can proceed.Tthis indicatesto me that despite a clearly delineated heirarchy legally, organisations are prepared to make their own way on the issue & try their proverbial luck. Also, the USADA has funding & a mandate from Congress, despite it proclaiming on it's own website that it is a non-government organisation, so there may be many layers of political play at work here. One thing is clear, if the USADA has evidence that may assist in a Federal investigation then it is obliged to provide it to that higher authority, & if that higher authority dismisses it then the USADA should be out of the game. Normally this wouldn't occur, but in the case of Olympic athletes & US Gov't sponsored teams such as US Postal the issues of raud & mis-use of public monies is at the forefront of the Attorney Generals actions. The USADA may well have a case, but if it does, it needs to cease its public comment in the interests of prejudicial behaviour & let the Attorney General proceed. The TDF is a big deal to cycling fans, but it is not as big a deal as fraud & criminal mis-use of Federal funds. I think Lance Armstrong & his legal team know all about it & are calling the bluff of the USADA in a big way. I don't understand why the AG is letting it play out other than for political expediency, but it surely must come to head soon, because as soon as the USADA has proven it's case, there surely must be a bigger one brewing behind the scenes which simply can't be ignored, political expediency or not.

Ah yes, sorry I was a bit loose with the term "court". Arbitration hearing, I meant Armstrong didn't want to hear the testimony and evidence read out in public - he's been trying to supress its release for years. USADA's first goal must be to satisfy its own evidence requirements (which are different to a criminal court) to disqualify him from sports, which are the limits of its jurisdiction. It's not surprising if the burden of proof is lower than the US AG, the consequences of not being able to race are obviously nowhere near as serious as being jailed. The Federal Court ruled that the USADA process is the correct and legitimate one for deciding the issue of bans and sporting sanctions. There's been no indication that USADA has been unwilling to share its evidence with US legal authorities, so perhaps in the fullness of time the US Attorneys may reopen their criminal case. We'll see. The US Attorney abandoned its case a couple of years ago, so it's entirely possible that USADA has collected enough new evidence in the intervening period. USADA has repeatedly stated that it wants to release all the evidence when the related cases are resolved. Clearly, if the evidence is good, this is in USADA's interests more than it is in Lance's interests, purely for their own credibility. If Lance thought the evidence was weak, he'd be more inclined to fight it rather than try to discredit the whole process. You don't throw in the towel in a fight you think you can win. This is going to keep rumbling on, but I reckon Armstrong's stuffed.

Pleasing to see the wealth of legal knowledge so many readers have about this subject. Unfortunately the lawyers WILL probably decide the outcome, and depending on who's side you are on it's either justice or a stew. Early days to say just yet, but knee jerk reactions seem to be the basis of a news story and so many people seem to go off half cocked about them. Be patient. If you hate Lance then he is guilty even if he gets off. If you support him then he is innocent regardless of the outcome. This saga will continue for many moons yet, after all it's been bubbling along for years now, a few more won't hurt.

No, they must follow their procedures and execute the case as required. Armstrong has had his day in court and lost. Now that he has decided not to arbitrate, which in this case is the same as an admission then the procedure is for him to be stripped of his titles and be banned. This is not like the Spanish Inquisition, I suggest you take a moment to learn a little about the religious persecution of the inquisition before spouting such garbage. He rolled the dice, he got caught. Boo Hoo. Time to move on and consign him and his legacy to being a footnote in the record books.

Would be great if he did. Perhaps he could drag John Fahey with him on the way down? I am sick to death of the anti doping zealots who live in some fairy land. There is no level playing field, never has been, never will be.

The USADA certainly does have the ability & right to initiate proceedings, sanction & take punitive action. Arbitration is the crucial word here though, which requires that both or all parties must agree to abide by/accept the award/decision of the independent third party. This is why the USADA has had to invite Armstrong to arbitration rather than simply prosecute him or hand down a verdict. Armstrong has the right to reject the offer ( despite what may be considered a tacit agreement to abide by it's decision by being a registered competitor in a competition admiinistered by an organisation which is a funding member of the USADA such as the ASO, organiser of the TDF for example or the Olympics as a member of the US Olympic Team via US Olympic Committee when he competed in the Olympics) & yet his rejection has been taken by the USADA to be an admission of guilt by absence. He refuses to take part & thus is guilty as charged. If there was a tacit agreement to abide by it's ruling established by his participation in said events then the USADA would have been under no obligation to even offer arbitration. The fact that it did suggests that tacit agreement is not sufficient to establish its' jurisdiction without Armstrongs' agreement. This lack of agreement is not a barrier to the right of the USADA to adjudicate on the matter given it actually has evidence that holds up to proper scrutiny etc. What is a barrier to it's right is the fact that despite being a "non-profit, non- governmental agency" it actually receives funding from both government agencies such as the US Olympic Committee & the Office of National Drug Control & Federal grants which, aligned with it's endorsement/mandate from US Congressmakes it a very government dependant 'non-governmental' agency. This alone wouldn't be such a problem, but the fact that the USADA prosecution of Armstrong involves a the potential mis-use of Federal monies & or commission of fraud against the US Government is where it gets murky. If Armstrong ( & others, including his team management& administrators) are guilty of doping, then as part of the US Postal Service sponsored team there is the chance that they are also involved in the aforementioned crimes. Essentially, if the USADA can prove the doping allegations & take punitive action against Armstrong et al, then by rights the US Attorneys Office will be able to use that to prove the commission of fraud & mis-use of Federal monies, which is a much more serious crime than doping. The US Attorney has already dropped its' investigation into the alleged crimes, because their case mainly rested on being able to prove the doping first. This doesn't mean the USADA has no case, it may well do, but what it does mean is that either the US Attorney has already reviewed the evidence & found no way to use it successfully or it is new evidence & thus should be forwarded to them by the USADA for use in their own prosecution. Catch-22, the USADA can prove doping & thus the case goes way over their mandate to a Federal case, or they can't & the matter ends. As I put forward in my other posts here, the matter either goes back to a Federal prosecution or it ends in exoneration. The USADA cannot have it both ways.