I thought only Jrenfro was allowed to start new Lance threads.

Bless his heart. I hope he left in the fact that at 12 he came in 4th in his AG in a Texas Youth Swimming Championship

---

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *
http://www.bobswims.com/

"If you didn't swallow water in your last open water race, you weren't racing"

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

That is of course the whole point of all of this.

I know you and others will disagree, but his team does make some good points in the refile. Working my way on it. Currently on page 14.

Do you notice any substantive differences between today's and Monday's versions or did they just snip out the fluff?

The more I think about his "no agreement to arbitrate" argument, the less I like it.

Some reasons that come to mind:
1. UCI and WADA and USADA are all tied together, he chose to race in WADA races, knowing that USADA handles USA prosecution.
2. He by his own admission submitted to USADA drug tests.

It seems to me that even if a formal connection between UCI, WADA and USADA can't be demonstrated; his actions should estop him from claiming a lack of jurisdiction.

Lance is essentially saying, 'yeah I peed in cups a hundred or so times for them but if I had tested positive I still wouldn't have gone a long with the process.' It makes no sense to subject oneself to a race governed by WADA(and in turn USADA) and to the direct testing of USADA and then claim to have no agreement with them.

Honestly didn't read the massive 80 pager as I didn't have time or the attention span to go over it. I figured I could handle 25 pages. :)

Good document. Looking forward to a judge's opinion of it. Personally, I think the strongest argument is that USADA is effectively a part of the US government and therefore can not brush aside due process procedures. And I loved the part about how the arbitrators are selected without any input from those they govern.

---

----------------------
Tri Me.
Work Me.

Here's an interesting article from Outside Mag. addressing these issues.
I have not read all of it - it's long - but I read the first page and it makes good points (although I do not know if there is any factual basis)

http://www.outsideonline.com/...rmstrong-Victim.html

---

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hilly Flats Racing

This question is directed to those with legal experience:

Does a judge typically have research or support staff to help him deal with matters such as this. If he does, would the staff ever informally talk to the Lawyers submitting a brief and suggest what areas might need further explanation or detail?

"USADA says it has direct authority over thousands of citizens, with the ability to deprive them of property rights, ruin their reputations, and even conduct warrantless searches and seizures. It argues that it can use the courts to compel people who have nothing to do with sports to testify in its private proceedings under threat of perjury, to surrender evidence or other documents, and to name names. It insists that it doesn�t have to follow the usual rules of justice guaranteed by the Constitution. What�s more, it has been actively expanding its powers."

From the article you cited. Anyone able to confirm or deny? Slowman, can you chime in?

First this is a well plead complaint.

Now to the question. In my experience the judge has research staff available. Some judges like to do some or most of their own research. It just depends on preference, how busy the judge is and the importance or interest in the case. I have no info on how this judge does it. If the judge thinks that counsel has not argued their case well, it might weaken their attempt to get relief from the court. I have had judges request that the parties prepare an additional briefs on specific legal questions that s/he felt needed more authority. Informal discussions about the merits of the case with the judge's staff is strictly a no-no in my opinion.

---

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * *
http://www.bobswims.com/

"If you didn't swallow water in your last open water race, you weren't racing"

I agree. Whether you believe or don't believe he doped, the process used here does have serious flaws and you can certainly make a case that it doesn't provide due process. I know some will argue that criminal law doesn't apply here, but why should we be ok with a process that doesn't provide the same protections that we are granted and expect in a criminal proceeding and as provided by the U.S. Constitution? Seriously. The USADA essentially asserts that it can ban an athlete, strip that athlete of awards, and deprive that athlete of the ability to earn a living using its own rules, rather than the rules of our legal system and Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's likely he doped. And if the USADA has all of this evidence they supposedly have on him, you have to think that he'd lose his case. But he still deserves due process. To me, that due process is far more important than any individual case. Give him his day in court, and if/when he loses, sanction him and ban him all you want.

I finished. He was a member of USAC, may still be. They give jurisdiction to USADA. He is a member of WTC a WADA signatory, which means again USADA.

I think point 16 here in section 1 is the critical point, and if it appeared in pretty much any version of this document from 2010 prior for Lance to have agreed to USADA rules. No way to know for sure unless someone has an old copy, but unless they have flipflopped on jurisdiction over time of a retired athlete (not that im aware of) it would seem UCI gives USADA jurisdiction over the rider.

So far as I know USADA existed during every point except perhaps anything that happened in the 99 season.

http://www.uci.ch/...NDc3MDk&LangId=1

Further here's the current international license form from USA cycling. Read the applicant declaration. Gives USADA jurisdiction again.

http://www.usacycling.org/forms/intl_license.pdf

Thanks. I haven't finished today's brief but it does seem to have some additional information in it. Interesting read.

agreed, plus I think I found the point where UCI says USADA has jurisdiction and as long as it was in place during any of his pro years, especially the last couple, he has no leg to stand on in regards to jurisdiction. Section 1 Point 16 http://www.uci.ch/...NDc3MDk&LangId=1

why should we be ok with a process that doesn't provide the same protections that we are granted and expect in a criminal proceeding and as provided by the U.S. Constitution?

I know absolutely nothing about law, but wouldn't the same logic that applied in the banning of the football players (for putting bounties on players) apply here. Lance, at his own free will, participate in events that has/had a governing body and that governing body can conduct it's business in what ever manner they wish? Not saying i agree with how they conduct their business, but Lance was in no way compelled to participate in events under their sanction. He chose to participate and in so much agreed to abide by their rules.

Yes to your first question. They have clerks to do this sort of work. No on the second question. The lawyers may be heard (oral arguments) when the judge hears the motion in court, but more often than not, the judge already has his/her mind made up before the lawyers show up to argue their case (in fact, they often publish "tentative rulings" the night before or the morning of the hearing, to let the parties know the direction the judge is leaning. Tentatives almost always stand.

In cases like this, though, don't expect to see tentatives.

---

Amateur recreational hobbyist cyclist
https://www.strava.com/athletes/337152
https://vimeo.com/user11846099

Like they used to say on Scooby-Doo... If Lance didn't dope and cheat, he wouldn't be in this mess.

Words to live by

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I am not a lawyer, but married to a trial lawyer and have an army of them working for me. This has all of them fascinated with the power of USADA and the inability of the accused to conduct discovery prior to the hearing.

It's professional rules.... Like getting dis-barred. Is there discovery for that?

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I'm no lawyer either but I believe there are many valid point in the lawsuit.

Sounds like they dont even have juristiction.. the USADA didnt even exist back then and the contracts LA signed had nothing about USADA or their power to do anything.