Regarding the statute of limitations (SOL), USADA did state in the charging letter to Bruyneel, Ferrari et al that fraudulent activity aimed at concealing doping violations is sufficient grounds for waiving the statute.
Finally, it may be noted that the conduct of the USPS Conspiracy and doping by its
participants has spanned a period in excess of eight (8) years and there currently exists an
eight year statute of limitations in the Code and UCI ADR. With respect to each of the
Respondents there exists substantial evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony of
doping that occurred within eight years of the date of this letter.
It is also the law that evidence of doping throughout the entire time period described is
relevant and will be admissible in any eventual hearing for at least two reasons: (I)
evidence of doping and evidence of conspiratorial acts outside any applicable limitations
period can be used to corroborate evidence within the limitations period, and (2) as
explained in USADA v. Hellebuyck (copy provided as Attachment D) results outside the
limitations period can be disqualified where reliance on the statute of limitations has been
waived through false statements, fraudulent concealment or other wrongful conduct.
Eddy Hellebuyck, a Belgo-American marathon runner, tested positive for EPO in an out-of-competition test in 2004. Hellebuyck went to arbitration, where he stated that he had never used EPO prior to 2004. He received the usual two-year ban, commencing January 31, 2004. However, in 2010, in an interview with Runner's World magazine, he admitted to using EPO, and then wrote to USADA, confessing to using EPO in 2001. As a result, new proceedings were instigated in 2011, with his results going back to 2001 being wiped.
As noted in a
Some Random Thursday blog post on LA and SOL, the way SOL worked meant that in theory, USADA couldn't have been able to do anything about Hellebuyck's 2001 doping violations, not least because the applicable SOL period in 2001 was six years. However...
Here's where things get interesting. USADA argued that the statute of limitations was tolled (to delay, suspend or hold off the effect of a statute) by Hellebuyck's fraudulent concealment of his prior use of EPO. The arbitration panel acknowledged that "there have been no AAA or CAS panels that have addressed fraudulent concealment or equitable tolling as a result of a prior perjury allegation with respect to the statute of limitations under the WADA Code or the admissions limitation period under the IAAF Rules." However, the panel determined that Hellebuyck's false testimony in 2004 fraudulently concealed his prior violations and that "any limitations period in this case was tolled until actual discovery of the wrongdoing. in other words until Hellebuyck notified USADA in October of 2010, and USADA brought its claims herein well within any limitations period ofter that publication."
So, for USADA to use Hellebuyck as justification for scrubbing all results post-1998, never mind post-2004, there has to be something in their case file which shows that Armstrong was fraudulently concealing prior violations, preferably during the SOL time frame preceding the posting of the charging letter. From what I was reading yesterday, I think it has to be something to do with the 2006 arbitration hearings connected to the dispute between SCA Promotions and Tailwind. The Wiki entry on Armstrong had only a cursory mention of the SCA case, but the cite note linked to an investigative article in the Los Angeles Times from 2006, which makes for interesting reading.
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/09/sports/sp-armstrong9Sworn testimony as well as exhibits and other documents constitute the record of confidential arbitration proceedings, a series of closed hearings conducted early this year in Dallas in connection with a contract dispute.
The Times reviewed the files -- including thousands of pages of transcripts, exhibits and other records. They are filled with conflicting testimony, hearsay and circumstantial evidence admissible in arbitration hearings but questionable in more formal legal proceedings.
The record shows no eyewitnesses to Armstrong's alleged drug use. And in his own sworn testimony, Armstrong unequivocally denies that he ever doped.
(My bold)
For those who are interested, Armstrong's testimony found it's way on to the web in both video and transcript form:
http://velocitynation.com/content/features/2011/bicileaks-full-armstrong-sca-testimonyhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/31833754/Lance-Armstrong-TestimonyUSADA stripping results outside the SOL time frame suggests that there is recent sworn testimony in the case file, and other evidence, that shows Armstrong was lying through his teeth in 2006, and in my opinion, Armstrong's refusal to contest the charges suggests that he knows that if he testifies to USADA truthfully now, this will become all too apparent.
