tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post3985893484243865151..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: No Documents for You! (Correspondence, Part 1)DBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-63362568913512352962006-11-09T19:33:00.000-08:002006-11-09T19:33:00.000-08:00I presume jacobs has demonstrated power of attorne...I presume jacobs has demonstrated power of attornery so he should be considered as Floyd in the correspondance.<br /><br />We haven't seen his request letter which may have had so much in it as to be taken as devisive.<br /><br />That being said there is something to be said for having the power (USADA) versus the right (Floyd)<br /><br />It good we get to see this as it shows, although to a limited audience, the childish efforts on part of the USADA.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-70921863699642469732006-11-06T14:56:00.000-08:002006-11-06T14:56:00.000-08:00Seems to me to be the correct response and USADA f...Seems to me to be the correct response and USADA following their rules and procedures here makes it easier to criticize WADA and LNDD not following the rules and procedures before. You can hardly ask USADA to bend the rules and then complain that someone else didn't follow them. If I were presenting the case I would turn this decision round to my favour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-91747926812575981122006-11-06T12:12:00.000-08:002006-11-06T12:12:00.000-08:00Part 2 of the series is about the document request...Part 2 of the series is about the document request.<br /><br />Where procedurally it is relevant isn't clear -- subpoena probably isn't in play. The rules are that USADA is supposed to give Landis what they have, if I understand correctly. This includes the LDP as provided by LNDD, and they are not obliged to provide more according to the ISL. If it isn't good enough to make the case, then it isn't. The arbitrators may order more in pre-hearing procedings.<br /><br />It is not at all clear to me under what rule USADA has refused to provide information it has or could obtain. They aren't constrained by the ISL.<br /><br />TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-28536574877731404962006-11-06T09:14:00.000-08:002006-11-06T09:14:00.000-08:00Andrew from Australia here. Why not publish the le...Andrew from Australia here. Why not publish the letter from Jacobs to USADA so we can understand the context? Are these documents that Jacobs would only be entitled to in discovery or by subpoena after the Hearing process has commenced? If so, USADA is entitled to deny him documents at this stage.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com