How do you appeal a default judgment based on a "no contest" plea?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US Anti-Doping Agency Brings Formal Charges Against Lance Armstrong
- Thread starter alr1ght
- Start date
- Status
How do you appeal a default judgment based on a "no contest" plea?
I don't see how this is relevant. He isn't fighting this one and so why not if he fought them all in the past? He is just tired right and just wants to run his triathalons without paying for a lawyer.
I don't know. They just can. Also, they can refuse to acknowledge the decision, thus allowing Armstrong to keep his titles.
You know, it's not just about money. It takes a toll on someone to actively participate in a defense of his reputation for the rest of his fucking life. As he said, there came a point when enough was enough, and he doesn't care anymore because he's realized this shit is never going to stop.
From what I read, no they aren't...
They can appeal, but there is nothing that they can argue about the decision, especially since the federal case for jurisdiction got thrown out.
If you plead "no contest" or "guilty" to a charge, its going to be hard to appeal the decision since you didn't fight it.
They can refuse to acknowledge the decision, but they are then in violation of the WADC and it will show that the UCI is a joke.
Yes, they can choose to defy the WADC.
Zoramon089
Banned
Like this whole situation hasn't already made the USADA into a joke
No, the WADA only granted the USADA the power of results management. The ultimate decision is still in the UCI's hand and they can choose to do their own tests.
Bumblebeetuna
Banned
It's relevant because it directly contradicts what you're saying. Maybe a better way for you to say it is he fought plenty of other allegations, why not these? But of course that weakens your argument that he must be guilty or else he'd fight it. Of course, not to mention it's THE SAME STUFF lol. He got what he thought was justice in the investigation that mattered. No point wasting time and energy fighting this witch hunt though.
Let me know when Lance Armstrong actually tests dirty
It's relevant because it directly contradicts what you're saying. Maybe a better way for you to say it is he fought plenty of other allegations, why not these? But of course that weakens your argument that he must be guilty or else he'd fight it. He got what he thought was justice in the investigation that mattered. No point wasting time and energy fighting this witch hunt though.
Let me know when Lance Armstrong actually tests dirty
That is exactly what I said. And it doesn't weaken my argument, the USADA obviously has its most compelling argument now and Lance now all of a suddent claims that it is all a joke and a lie.
He doesn't need to test postive. Doesn't matter.
I'm talking about the WADC.
15.4
They stated that lifetime bans imposed by the USADA are consistent with 15.4:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...nition-in-wake-of-u-s-postal-sanctions_229112
Results management includes loss of results--this is how Marion Jones lost all her medals:
http://www.usada.org/sanctions/
Of course its relevant. Lawsuits are a very long, expensive and intrusive process. Is he not allowed to say enough of this after a couple of years of this shit?
I really don't see what you are getting at. You are acting like this letter from him saying enough is some end-all-be-all of proof that he's guilty when in reality its nothing more than a fallacy and false equivalency.
He's only stopped fighting so it doesn't go any further, if someone is happy to be stripped of 7 Tour wins then that just says everything.
http://www.brettluelling.com/post/3435612945/armstrongs-tdf-victories :lol
http://www.brettluelling.com/post/3435612945/armstrongs-tdf-victories :lol
The real dirt's still coming. Bruyneel and one of the other accused have asked for arbitration. When Hincapie, Leipheimer, Vaughters, and others' testimony comes out it'll raise the eyebrows of even the staunch defenders. Then there's Tyler Hamilton's book which is coming in September.
Except, he may not even be stripped....so it doesn't matter. If UCI and US Cycling reject the USADA's claims, it's going to make them look incredibly foolish. Surely they must know this?
But he faught them in courts to prevent this case from happening and his lawyer sent out this statement to press today
Not the actions of a man who is tired of lawsuits
edit: about him always being present for doping tests, he was let in to competition again after his retirement without following the doping code.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I wonder how many more would be marked as tainted if you expand those lists to top 10 or 20.
They will probably follow Lance and drop arbitration now. There's alot of people that don't want this to reach public eyes
edit: and Lance have tested positive, but they backdated a prescription so it looked like he was following the rules
http://m.si.com/news/to/to/detail/3775061 said:
Now this is getting unclear.
The statement I referred to about WADA granting the results management to USADA comes from William Bock III. Going by that USADA site you linked apparently he is a lawyer for them, but there is no other outlet that I can find that reports this decision. Only thing I can find is that the UCI has sued the USADA for the rights and that the verdict is undecided.
Now as for the code, on the other site you linked you can read the code verbatim. USADA seems to violate at least a couple rules of Article 15:
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...DP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf
15.1.1 said:
15.1 said:
So if I understand thios correctly the fact that UCI collected alot of these samples gives them jurisdiction, especially considering alot would have been taking during the event period. So if USADA can just say screw the code, whats so wrong with UCI doing it?
You don't understand it correctly. UCI is responsible for testing during the event. That's all it says.
That has nothing to do with hearings and adjudications outside of testing during the event.
Results management means they can strip results after the event.
Armstrong sued the USADA and said that UCI had authority. The case was thrown out since WADA sided with USADA. You're linking to an article about a case that was already decided.
Yes he fought to prevent it from happening because it violates some of the WADC.
And he doesn't have to be present for those types of arbitration. UCI already has a case against USADA. Again false equivalency....
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
So sad he stopped the fight.
UCI does not have a case against USADA. They sided with Armstrong in the Federal Court case. WADA sided with USADA. Four days ago, the judge ruled against Armstrong and said that USADA could proceed, probably because WADA backed the USADA.
You keep talking about false this and false that, but you're spreading more of that than many others here.
Yeah this case is (potentially) much bigger than Armstrong and his 7 titles. It's not that many years ago he ended his career. A lot of the people he worked with/for are still around and occupying different positions in the sport (former teammates, doctors, managers, sports directors and soigneurs).
Unfortunatly the cycling sport is fully and totally corrupted with drug-abuse. It's hard to imagine nearly everyone having success in the sport getting caught doping up and this one guy that ruled them all being innocent. The chances of that being the case seem extremely low.
To me it seems he was simply the best at finding the latest undetectable ways and in that respect, I guess he was really the best guy in the sport at the time. I find it hard to believe everyone was using, but this one guy was simply so great that even all the cheaters couldn't beat him for seven years.
I also believe he knew he was going to lose this and in the process lose all credibility, so he chose this option so that he can say "I took the high ground, see, I WAS clean all this time. They're just lying" and not lose as much face as he would've when he fought it and inevitably lost.
To me it seems he was simply the best at finding the latest undetectable ways and in that respect, I guess he was really the best guy in the sport at the time. I find it hard to believe everyone was using, but this one guy was simply so great that even all the cheaters couldn't beat him for seven years.
I also believe he knew he was going to lose this and in the process lose all credibility, so he chose this option so that he can say "I took the high ground, see, I WAS clean all this time. They're just lying" and not lose as much face as he would've when he fought it and inevitably lost.
Yeah sorry forgot to link the most important one....
15.3 said:
So yeah the fact that the USADA is trying to use samples that were initiated by the UCI is a blatant violation.
Also the dropping of the case had nothing to do with WADA siding with anybody. It was dropped partly because Armstrong's team missed the deadline to respond to the USADA's motion to dismiss.
Case wasn't decided it, was threw out because the judge didn't think courts should be involved in such a case and that the international arbitration body should take over.
So yeah even if WADA backs USADA, the USADA is clearly violating some of WADC and won't even share the samples. The international arbitrator would be the UCI, going by the WADC.
So it all comes down to this, why should the UCI have to be completely bound by a provision of recognition when it shouldn't apply to them considering the other provisions that govern who has authority in the first place.
How would something like witnesses be bound by these rules? As far as I know this case is not based on positive samples
And the latest statement from UCI says they're accepting the judges decision and the arbitration
I'm just annoyed that people who don't know a thing about cycling are now taking this as their turn to write about something other than football.
I swear to god if Skip Bayless starts running his mouth about cycling, I hope Eddy Merckx eats him.
---
Lance was the best cyclist of an era where people were so doped up it was insane. But Lance is also one of the best cyclists of any era.
While he may have doped to win the TdF, I sincerely doubt he was doping to win Leadville, or the triathalons before he got sick, or any number of the smaller events he crushed people in.
And even if he was the greatest cyclist of the doping era - drugs don't get you around Beloki on a fast descent by going off-road, insane bike handling skills do. Stripping Lance of the TdF wins is a pointless waste of time unless you are going to give the titles to the random domestique who was too far down the ladder to waste money on transfusions for.
I swear to god if Skip Bayless starts running his mouth about cycling, I hope Eddy Merckx eats him.
---
Lance was the best cyclist of an era where people were so doped up it was insane. But Lance is also one of the best cyclists of any era.
While he may have doped to win the TdF, I sincerely doubt he was doping to win Leadville, or the triathalons before he got sick, or any number of the smaller events he crushed people in.
And even if he was the greatest cyclist of the doping era - drugs don't get you around Beloki on a fast descent by going off-road, insane bike handling skills do. Stripping Lance of the TdF wins is a pointless waste of time unless you are going to give the titles to the random domestique who was too far down the ladder to waste money on transfusions for.
And regarding doping past and present:
Jonatan Vaughters, sports director of Garmin, sits on some sort of UCI board where he got to see results from blood tests during the years and he's said this:
Interestingly enough JV is believed to be one of the witnesses against Lance and he has recently admitted to doping when he was an active cyclist (although he was never caught by any tests)
Jonatan Vaughters, sports director of Garmin, sits on some sort of UCI board where he got to see results from blood tests during the years and he's said this:
Interestingly enough JV is believed to be one of the witnesses against Lance and he has recently admitted to doping when he was an active cyclist (although he was never caught by any tests)
TheGoldenGunman
Member
A sad day for cycling and for sports as a whole. I think it always was pretty obvious he cheated, but this news pretty much confirms it. I always used to watch the Tour de France on Channel 4 as a teenager and although not liking Armstrong, I found his success to be truly inspirational. Here was a man that not only beat cancer, but came back leaner and stronger and outdid even the mighty Miguel Indurain! That has now been tarnished forver...
Still, even though he will go down as a cheat, he provided many magical moments. I remember seeing this stage live on TV and I literally could not believe seeing this. At the time it really made me think that he had the true "heart of a champion":
http://youtu.be/sRxGNttpaZA
Still, even though he will go down as a cheat, he provided many magical moments. I remember seeing this stage live on TV and I literally could not believe seeing this. At the time it really made me think that he had the true "heart of a champion":
http://youtu.be/sRxGNttpaZA
Lamel
Banned
I mean, the dude probably doped. IF I had SEVEN tour de france medals on the line I would fight fight fight.
Also read an autobiography of his. The "inspirational" aspect is ruined by this guys assholishness.
TheGoldenGunman
Member
I imagine that LA is still a big hero to many so I'll try avoid starting any flame-wars or heated arguments, as that's not my intention. I suppose there still is no definitive proof (yet) that he did cheat, but I personally think that if he did not cheat, he would fight until the bitter end to prove his innocence. That's why to me, his statement of not fighting these charges feels like an admittance of guilt. I also note that in his statement, he never states that he has never used drugs, he only states that he has never tested positive for using them.
A previous post listed all of LA's victories, and showed how almost all of the people he beat were caught cheating in one way or another. Marco Pantani, one of his biggest rivals was found dead in his hotel room doping! I therefore find it incredibly hard to believe that Armstrong could surpass all of these riders by such margins whilst still remaining clean, as it's just not humanly possible.
Later this year, a large number of riders will appear in court and provide evidence against the US Postal team and Bruynell, so I would imagine that more facts will be discovered then.
You're not reading things correctly again. Read the actual order:
http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/08-20-2012-Armstrong-Order.pdf
The case was not dropped because they missed the deadline. They responded on time.
The court had jurisdiction over the due process claims. The court said that his due process challenges were without merit. They also found that there was no problem giving USADA jurisdiction due to the Sports Act and Armstrong's own arbitration agreement with the USADA.
Due Process Claims:
Jurisdiction:
Arbitration agreement:
Sports Act:
The part about kicking it to arbitration was for the other minor claims besides jurisdiction and due process claims, and the judge finds that sports arbitration is better to handle those.
Coming back leaner and being a better GC rider for it is nothing new. Look at Bradley Wiggins. He's lost tons of weight to help his climbing, transforming his body from a track cyclist to a GC contender. Indurain got much better as a GC rider after his weight drop for instance.
This is bullshit. Pantani died heartbroken and alone in a hotel room from what most believe to be a cocaine overdose from really high end coke. He was already retired and basically thought no one loved him.
A good, not exceptional cyclist comes back from terrible, body-ruining experience and kills all the opponents, even suspicious riders like Pantani and Ulrich, with a team that contains eight other riders that don't get a single weak day in a three week course for multiple years. Oh, and he worked with doctor Ferrari, about 90% of his clients have been caught doping. So, by 2003 or something it was quite clear.
This is a bit of a fallacious statement to make. Armstrong was a TdF stage winner and UCI Road World Champion prior to the diagnosis. Doesn't mean he wasn't doping, but don't make it sound like he was some normal cyclist.
Also, strength of team being a circumstantial evidence factor is a bit misleading because by that logic Sky would be doped to the gills this year.
TheGoldenGunman
Member
Indurain and Wiggins still clearly struggled in the mountains, however. In this year's tour, Chris Froome was clearly reigned in by Team Sky when it was obvious that he could have sprinted away from Wiggins to a potential mountain-top stage win. Armstrong, conversely dominated in both the mountains and the individual time-trial, despite most of his rivals cheating.
You're right here. At the time, I remember reading Newspaper reports that stated that although Cocaine ultimately did kill him on that night, his heart had irregularities that were consistent with someone who doped for long periods of time. I can't find any refference to those reports now however, so perhaps that has been cleared up.
Anyway for what it's worth, I want to say that Pantani was actually my all-time favourite rider in the tour. The year he won it was one of the best tours of all time, especially the way that he destroyed the entire peleton on the various high climbs. I also remember his incredible ride up L'Alpe d'Huez, for which he still holds the record for climbing in the fastest time. He was one of the most aggressive riders the tour has ever seen, and all cycling fans loved him because of the excitement he created. Many of his duels against Armstrong will forever remain in my memory, that's for sure.
I've been saying this for years now and over here in Europe everybody also knew this due to various revealations. Nice to see that Americans are finally admitting it too (apart from a few delusionists), even if it means the destruction of their hero.
Saddest thing to happen though: Jan Ullrich and other dopers will receive Lance's titles now, which isn't fair either.
Saddest thing to happen though: Jan Ullrich and other dopers will receive Lance's titles now, which isn't fair either.
Other people to have accomplished similar feats: Romāns Vainšteins, Oscar Camenzind, Luc Leblanc, Laurent Brochard. None of them being exceptional material, just like Armstrong in his first career. He was good, but he wouldn't become a legend. He wasn't a 'Greg LeMond'.
Their team wasn't that good. They got in trouble multiple times on the mountains, and left arranging the escapes to the teams of the sprinters.
I find it quite sad for Der Jan though. Imagine what he could have been without Lance or if he had won in 1996.
The UCI accepted the federal judge's decision to allow USADA to proceed with arbitration:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...never-fighting-to-defend-Lance-Armstrong.aspx
Xisiqomelir
Member
So UCI would just say "nuh-uh"? Then it would be WADA+USADA vs UCI and Armstrong?
Psychotext
Member
I think that's what it is for me... we know that he utterly crushed people who we know were doping. This isn't a case of a good rider being able to beat the cheats, because cheating in this case makes too big a difference to just out-skill.
Ignoring the fact that we know everyone (competitive) was doping to a certain extent because they'll all had their hemocrit and testosterone levels at the absolute legal max.
- Status