Saturday, July 28, 2012

All Hail USADA CEO Comrade Travis T. Tygart!

 Comrades! The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), the soviet organ of a million false negative tests, has filed a "non-analytical positive" accusation against seven time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong based solely upon denunciations of former teammates and these denunciations cannot be supported by a shred of scientific evidence!  This concept, the unprovable denunciation, is certainly Orwellian, Kafkaesque. Comrade Joseph Stalin would certainly approve of the tactics of Comrade Travis T. Tygart!  After being anonymously denounced by former teammates, the athlete K. is mysteriously arrested by USADA agents then sent to the USADA interrogator. Confess!  If you refuse to confess you automatically waive your the statutes of limitations rights!  The current USADA action against Lance Armstrong  has an eerie resemblance to an episode in  Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.  Citizens during the Joseph Stalin regime were imprisoned based upon anonymous denunciations under Article 58, an amorphous collection of infractions that could be applied to any definition of political dissident, and sentenced to hard labor for twenty five years without trial or right of appeal.  The sentences given out under Article 58 were euphemistically parodied by the prisoners as twenty five rouble notes.  

Note the similarities between doping arbitration and the Stalin soviet model.  USADA is considered a private entity even though it receives federal funding and is allowed to participate in Federal probes of possible criminal misuse of federal money to traffic dope.  USADA is allowed to fully collaborate with agents of Interpol, and is allowed to share intelligence with French and Italian anti-doping officials in concert with "U.S. Special Prosecutor Jeff Novitzky, Federal Prosecutor Doug Miller, his co-counsel Mark Williams and FBI Special Agent Olivier Farable."  Nevertheless, even though USADA acted in the capacity of a state actor Travis T. Tygart insists that USADA is private entity and is therefore exempt from the protections afforded to defendants under the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  And since the action taken against athletes is considered a civil action and not a criminal action, arbitration is a perfectly suitable method for adjudication, a trial is unnecessary, comfortable satisfaction is suitable, beyond a reasonable doubt is unnecessary.  Also unnecessary, the requirement that the state present all of it's evidence in a preliminary hearing and that a judge make a determination whether to proceed to a trial.  Instead of a preliminary hearing where the state must present all of their evidence to an impartial judge USADA forces the defendant to present a blind response to a anti-doping review board that is controlled by USADA without any requirement by USADA to provide any evidence to the defendant.  Refusal by the defendant to supply a blind submission is construed as an agreement by the defendant to the charges outlined in a charging letter (note: at this stage of the process the athlete has not been charged with a "non analytical positive" that step comes after the anti-doping review board makes a determination to proceed with the case) within a specified number of days: this lack of response is considered a forfeit by the defendant, and an automatic lifetime suspension ensues at the discretion of USADA.

Other U.S. Constitutional Rights that do not apply under doping arbitration.

-The right to a speedy trial.
-The right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney one will be provided by the state.
-A right to examine witnesses.
-A right to be judged by a jury of your peers.
-A right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself.
-Discovery.  The state is compelled to release all incriminating evidence for examination to the defense.
-The state must prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.
-A public trial.  No private Court of Arbitration of Sport Star Chamber Proceedings.
-A transcript of trial testimony must be available for public inspection.
-A statute of limitations.  The state does not have an indefinite amount of time to prosecute a case.
-Due process.  The rules of procedure are written in stone, established by precedent, and not subject to manipulation at the whim of the prosecution.

It is impossible to believe that these simple protections offered to the citizens of the United States of America are denied to athletes in doping arbitration.  Kangaroo courts, star chamber proceedings, lettres de cachet, are exactly the type of legal abuse that the great founders of America tried to prevent, not encourage!  If Thomas Jefferson witnessed a doping arbitration hearing presided over by a tribunal he would roll over in his grave, and he would certainly lament this insidious deterioration of American values and freedom we have been experiencing in this country lately. In America we used to be appalled and disgusted with Soviet style justice, we used to laugh and jeer at the "pinko commie fags."  Nowadays, we commend the fascist tribunals who destroy the lives of athletes, based on denunciations, without any scientific proofs.  Denunciations have replaced science!  This sets a bad precedent and it will result in an ever expanding abuse of justice.

 

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Many of your assertions about what the USADA arbitration process involve are incorrect.

USADA does provide representation if the accused can not afford one.

There is a discovery process in which all evidence is turned over to the person charged.

There is a statute of limitations although the USADA can argue they should be tolled in certain circumstances.

The accused does not have to incriminate him/herself.

The trial can be public if the accused so wishes.

USADA does have due process. It may not be exactly like that of a criminal court, but then USADA's arbitration is a civil process and the defendants are not at risk of prison or death.

Incidentally, no defendant has a right to see the evidence against him before he is charged which is what Armstrong is arguing here. He hasn't even agreed to a hearing yet. That said, the NY Daily News reported that Armstrong's attorneys were sent some of the evidence in June, so he is lying when suggesting he hasn't seen any.

velovortmax said...

You are correct to state that Lance Armstrong has not decided whether to contest the charges since the matter is still pending in Federal Court and since USADA has granted Lance Armstrong an extension. Under the American Arbitration Association rules Lance Armstrong does have an opportunity for a public hearing, but this does not necessarily apply to the Court of Arbitration of Sport arbitration, which can still be considered a de facto star chamber proceeding. And in doping arbitration the awards of the Court of Arbitration of Sport have no appeal. Worse, if the athlete wishes to challenge the reward on legal grounds he or she must do so in a Swiss court and the rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution need not apply.

Thank you for your input, I appreciate your feedback.