Lance to Finally Admit For the First Time to...Oprah??

If he say's he never took a drug and was clean his whole career people will say he's a Liar and if he say's he did take drugs he's an ass. So basically he does'nt win. I'd say nothing

rekrunner wrote:

Lance was not refused his trial.

Wrong. He was refused a trial.

Federal law forced the judge to tell Lance he could come back later, but not now.

Sure. After he's convicted by the dopes, he can come back for a fair trail?

You are joking, right? All the dopes already think he is guilty, he's still not had a trail and he's probably not going to get one.

rekrunner wrote:

I don't see why anyone thinks USADA used questionable tactics. Exactly what did they do that wasn't by the book?

They refused Armstrong a trial, fair or otherwise;

They convicted him with no evidence.

Right! Let's look at it from this perspective. The doping agencies are no different than the politicians catering to their best contributors. Armstrong doesn't have an obligation to admit to doping versus using performance enhancing drugs.

There is a semantical difference. Do you think Oprahs going to get close up to Lance and say "Lance stay still for a minute" get up close in face take her hands and open his wide blue eyes peer into both of them, while Lance's nostrils flare out. Then she'll take her thumbs and turn his nose upright like a pigs. She'll step back clap her hands and say "child, youse' is lying through your teeth, lawdy miss clawdy." Maybe in 1985 but not today. Nope. Oprah will give him the rubber stamp and say "hey what's the big fuss?" We'll all go back trotting back to the locker rooms with our tails wagging behind us our jockstraps fraying at the seems waiting for the real cyclist to come along - while whistling through our teeth "Cause' I speak of the pompetous of love!"

J.R., I'm often surprised how decoupled you are from reality.

You might want to read what Judge Sam Sparks thought about Lance's right to a trial:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/armstrong.pdf

If you do read it, you will see that Lance did not ask for a trial. He went to the District court to get the judge to stop USADA's arbitration, based on two claims:

- USADA lacks jurisdiction

- USADA did not give Lance "due process"

You will not find any indication that Lance wanted to be tried in the courts.

In fact, you can only have a trial if someone broke a law. USADA did not charge Lance with breaking any law. And this district court judge could not find that USADA broke any laws. You cannot have a trial unless someone is actually injured, or that injury is imminent and avoidable without court intervention. The judge said at this point, injury was only speculative. A biased arbitration would count as injury, but Armstrong did not show bias was unavoidable, and was not yet injured by bias.

The judge found that Armstrong was not injured, and the likelihood of injury wasn't shown. The judge found that his court could not overturn the will of Congress, and the agreement of Armstrong, on mere speculation of injury. In order to appear in the courts, Lance actually has to be injured by USADA, or Lance has to show that unavoidable injury is about to happen.

The judge found that Armstrong agreed to arbitrate disputes, rather than go to the courts. It's a condition of being a member of USA cycling, that members must agree to arbitrate. The court found that he must honor Armstrong's agreement to arbitrate. In other words, it was Armstrong himself, who refused his trial. Twice. Once when he agreed to arbitrate any disputes, and again when he agreed not to arbitrate this one.

USADA cannot and did not refuse Lance a trial. USADA has no authority to give Lance the trial you seem to think Lance wanted. USADA also has no possibility to deny any trial that Lance deserves, beyond brilliant lawyers appealing to federal laws, the will of Congress, and binding contract agreements.

And USADA did not and cannot "convict" Lance of anything. They simply declared Lance ineligible to compete. USADA had a lot of evidence: witness testimony, depositions, doping test results, e-mails, photos, videos, previous arbitration transcripts, etc. Since Lance chose not to arbitrate, all of USADA's evidence remains undisputed. We could argue about the timeframe, statute of limitations, or attempt to discredit/contradict witness testimony, but the right place for that argument was the arbitration that Lance decided not to proceed with.

Everything that happened, or did not happen, was a result of Lance's choices. USADA did not refuse Lance anything. The judge agreed to respect Armstrong's choice to arbitrate.

rekrunner wrote:

you can only have a trial if someone broke a law. USADA did not charge Lance with breaking any law.[quote]

They have made up their own laws, and convicted Armstrong of those, without going to court.

[quote]this district court judge could not find that USADA broke any laws.

The usada wasn't on trial. They didn't want a trial, and refused to give Armstrong a trial.

You cannot have a trial unless someone is actually injured, or that injury is imminent and avoidable without court intervention.

Well then perhaps we're on the same page. Armstrong is innocent, unless and until there is evidence presented in a court of law and he is convicted of a crime.

J.R. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

[quote]You cannot have a trial unless someone is actually injured, or that injury is imminent and avoidable without court intervention.

Well then perhaps we're on the same page. Armstrong is innocent, unless and until there is evidence presented in a court of law and he is convicted of a crime.

"innocent" of what? Of course, in the eyes of the law, he's innocent, because he didn't break a "law" .. but if he was doping, and it certainly seems that he was, then he cheated - and that's not what I'd call "innocent", especially given the countless ways that subject has fractured into various other realms - law suits, and so on.

Somehow I think this interview will make the dreamy eyed, fairy tale folks believe he is innocent or find a way to feel sorry for him even if he confesses in a non-truthful way. Just saying.

He should read off of a sheet of paper that he states his regret.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcNEAkzc5Tk

J.R., it's hard to know what you are talking about, because you keep confusing laws and trials with rules and arbitration, and flip-flopping between them being the same, and not the same.

USADA has codified rules, not laws. They did not convict Armstrong, but declared him ineligible to compete, a sanction based on violating some of these rules, and permitted by other of those rules, actions which are enforceable under contract law. By mutual agreement, all parties agree to settle disputes outside the courts. So there is nothing unusual about USADA making and codifying it's own rules, finding Armstrong in violation of those rules, and sanctioning him in accordance with this rules. I belong in a bowling league, and a similar structure exists. If I break a rule (e.g. wear the wrong color pants, or make a mistake on a scoring sheet), me or my club will be fined, and there is a process to dispute that, all well defined by the club rules. All this happens without going to court. You act like it's normal that this case should be tried in a court. Note that Armstrong, the UCI, and WADA all have a right of appeal on any sanctions issued by USADA. USADA's decisions are not final until all parties agree with the process and result.

USADA cannot refuse what Lance did not ask. Lance did not ask to be tried for doping and related offenses, by USADA, in a real court. Unless you mean the complaint I referenced earlier. Then Lance did ask for a trial, and USADA was the defendant of that trial (i.e. USADA was on trial). USADA didn't "refuse" this trial, but they did argue for its dismissal, as a matter of federal and contract law. USADA doesn't have the final word on this "refusal". The judge "refused" this trial, for now, without prejudice (i.e. Lance can come back only after he is really denied due process). The judge was bound by the will of congress, federal laws, and also forced to respect Armstrong's own agreement to be bound by USADA's rules and processes.

And if you think Lance's real goal was to have a trial, one that USADA refused, there are others who have stepped up to the plate to meet this desire:

- Landis initiated a federal whistle-blower suit

- SCA promotions is suing to reverse a previous arbitration decision, and recover their bonus payouts, plus penalties, interest, legal fees

- Sunday Times is planning to sue to reverse a libel decision and payout

If you are right, and Lance really wants to go to trial, he may still get his wish.

I will agree that Lance has not yet been found guilty of breaking the law. That can change if he is tried for perjury, defamation, fraud, etc. It's not clear though that "guilty" or "innocent" are the right words to describe why USADA sanctioned Lance with a lifetime ban, back-dated to 1999. USADA alleged many rule violations in a charging letter. After a lot of noise, Armstrong decided not to contest these charges, and therefore not disputing any of the evidence. Pleading "no contest" is in effect, accepting a guilty verdict, without admitting guilt:

So in that sense, technically Lance has not been found guilty of any rule violations, but he agreed to be punished as if he were guilty. I guess you can argue that technically he is still considered "innocent", by these definitions.

After a lot of noise, Armstrong decided not to contest these charges, and therefore not disputing any of the evidence. Pleading "no contest" is in effect, accepting a guilty verdict, without admitting guilt:

I agree with everything you've written, except this. Lance didn't plead "No Contest" - as you correctly stated first, he simply didn't contest the charges. A "No Contest" plea is a formal legal process, which cannot happen in arbitration.

The other point is that Lance's decision not to contest the charges is, under IOC rules (to which the UCI is a signatory - which it must be for cycling to be an Olympic sport; to which Lance, as a UCI license holder is a voluntary signatory, and the rules of which USADA upholds) a guilty plea. Lance plead guilty to the charges by refusing arbitration under IOC rules, not USADA (which doesn't make any rules itself).

I would like to understand on what basis J.R. claims that the arbitration - which was to be organized by the American Arbitration Association, and to which Armstrong would be able to appoint or co-appoint 2 of the 3 arbitrators - can be considered biased? My guess is that he simply doesn't know, and is hoping, by keeping firm on his ridiculously obtuse stance, to "win" by exhausting your patience.

I'm the amazing invisible person.

That's your interpretation. Even so, it's abhorant.

They should be declared ineligible to regulate.

Armstrong did not agree. He refused.

It is not unusual, that's the problem.

We should be able to wear whatever colors we like.

Instead of alphabet agencies making up all the rules rules, I say we make up our own rules ourselves and do away with them.

For me it's not a question of unusual or normal. It's an issue of justice and truth.

Of course not. No one in their right mind would ask for something so inane.

Idk what Armstrong wants. My point is that a trial would be preferable to a kangaroo court. Trials are supposed to be fair, though usually they aren't. Kangaroo courts are always not equitable.

He didn't have a choice in the matter. See. That's the point. He could have met in front of them, had no say, and listened to them spew a lot of nonsense with no evidence, or could have refused to participate. I would have done the same thing, except personally I would have been more vocal in my own ways in standing up for myself.

Right.

?

No, he refused to participate in the kangaroo court, because he did not agree with them.

Because he has never been convicted of anything.

At this point, even if he was convicted at some point in the future, it would not change my mind about the lack of justice system in place. He is simply, unwillingly, being the scapegoat for everyone else, including the USADA.

J.R. wrote:

Sure. After he's convicted by the dopes, he can come back for a fair trail?

You are joking, right? All the dopes already think he is guilty, he's still not had a trail and he's probably not going to get one.

Summary: Lance doped, J.R. is a dope.

Seriously, do you actually believe any of the crap you write?! As others (GenericID) have pointed out, the AAA is a highly respected system for settling disputes. Lance had every opportunity to fight the charges, but he ran like a coward.

rekrunner: Great posts, but unfortunately you've probably wasted your time as J.R. is incapable of comprehending reality.

Tor wrote:

the AAA is a highly respected system for settling disputes

Whether you respect the system or not does not matter.

Let's say that I force you to go to arbitration to resolve a dispute. You don't want to do this, because in your mind there is no dispute, but I force you to go. Normally I would not be able to do this but I am an organization that has free reign and that doesn't have to account to anyone. So you have to go to the arbitration or you lose.

This sounds find to you as you respect the arbitration system, but unbeknownst to you, the artibrator is a good friend of mine. We grew up together, he feels the same way that I do, and we're probably going to split what we get from you anyway, so he is highly motivated to make sure that I win. Oh and I will win, there is no question about that!

The difference between you and Lance, is that Lance already knows the system is rigged against him and that he won't be able to win, no matter how right and/or clean that he is. Even so, he would not be able to win. It seems to me that this is the reason he has chosen to not participate in the rigamarole.

It was decided before it was even begun.

GenericID wrote:

I would like to understand on what basis J.R. claims that the arbitration - which was to be organized by the American Arbitration Association, and to which Armstrong would be able to appoint or co-appoint 2 of the 3 arbitrators - can be considered biased? My guess is that he simply doesn't know, and is hoping, by keeping firm on his ridiculously obtuse stance, to "win" by exhausting your patience.

J.R., read the above and then get back to us about arbitration being unfair.

Normally I would not be able to do this but I am an organization that has free reign and that doesn't have to account to anyone.

The word is "rein" (homonyms can be quite easy if you think about them). The rest of the sentence is patently false - in the normal run of events USADA is accountable to WADA and ultimately the IOC. In the Armstrong case, USADA was additionally accountable to the US justice system (Judge Sam Sparks ruled that USADA did have the legal right to investigate Armstrong) - could you please explain how the US justice system is biased against Armstrong?

Let's say that I force you to go to arbitration to resolve a dispute.

You can't, unless I've VOLUNTARILY (key word) and CONTRACTUALLY (another key word) agreed that you can (and part of that voluntary contractual agreement which makes it legal - a part that Judge Sparks ruled on - is that, in the event that arbitration does not satisfactorily resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of both parties, a further remedy or remedies is available to them).

By taking out a professional license with UCI, Armstrong explicitly, VOLUNTARILY and CONTRACTUALLY, agreed that in the event USADA (or any other national anti-doping body within whose jurisdiction he competed) found evidence of an anti-doping rule violation, that if he, Armstrong, wished to dispute the accusation, he would take part in the specified arbitration process.

Armstrong also VOLUNTARILY and CONTRACTUALLY agreed that failure or refusal to take part in the specified process constituted a guilty plea.

Armstrong knew this BEFORE he signed the contract with UCI - if he didn't like the terms he should have registered a complaint BEFORE signing. The fact that he continued to compete under the UCI rules, signing the same contractual agreement every year for ~15 years (even after he became a big enough name to have conceivably demanded a different contract - certainly by the time of his 3rd or 4th TdF victory UCI needed Armstrong more than Armstrong needed UCI) indicates that he felt the process was fair.

Here he is on Letterman

GenericID wrote:

[quote]Normally I would not be able to do this but I am an organization that has free reign and that doesn't have to account to anyone.

The word is "rein"

This is too easy.

reign

noun

1. the period during which a sovereign occupies the throne.

2. royal rule or authority; sovereignty.

3. dominating power or influence: the reign of law.

verb (used without object)

4. to possess or exercise sovereign power or authority.

5. to hold the position and name of sovereign without exercising the ruling power.

6. to have control, rule, or influence of any kind.

7. to predominate; be prevalent.

This thread is too boring so I'm done with it.