Is Armstrong's claim valid that a USADA-directed arbitration hearing would be a "kangaroo court"?

[brentspeak]

Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 04:31 PM - Edit history (3)

Under the rules set by USADA, it gets to, among other things, hand-select the arbitrators who hear cases brought against athletes, as well as prevent athletes' lawyers from cross-examining witnesses called to testify against them.

How is this different from a prosecutor in a civil trial being allowed to unilaterally select the judge as well as being able to set the trial's ground rules?

If USADA's evidence against Armstrong is so strong (as it claims), why not simply relinquish its right to dictate the arbitration rules and instead allow a neutral third-party to direct the arbitration process?

Regardless of Armstrong's guilt or innocence, is it unreasonable for him to decline participating in a USADA-run arbitration?

[Dawgs]

1. Doesn't matter what Armstrong says, he's done. Same as Mark McGuire and Barry Bonds. n/t

[MadHound]

2. Well, first of all, the USADA violated its own rules in pursuing this case

The USADA wasn't allowing Armstrong to see any of the evidence against him, rather unconstitutional.

Hell, even Federal prosecutors after going to a grand jury dropped their case against Armstrong earlier this year. This sounds like the case was based on the fact that Armstrong won, and lots of innuendo. But no solid evidence.