Friday a key deadline as Armstrong case ramps up

  JIM VERTUNOAUSTIN, Tx. -- Lance Armstrong faces a Friday deadline to file a formal response to the latest allegations that he was doping during his seven consecutive Tour de France victories.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency informed Armstrong on June 12 that it plans to bring charges that he used performance-enhancing drugs. If found guilty, Armstrong could ultimately be stripped of the Tour de France titles he won from 1999-2005.

Armstrong insists he is innocent and despite the deadline he isn't required to file a written response. The deadline is important, however, because now the case will be sent to a USADA review panel to determine whether there's enough evidence to warrant formal charges.

If it does, Armstrong could find himself before an arbitration panel to decide the matter by November.

Here's a look at a few of the questions surrounding Armstrong's case: ---
Q: Why didn't the Armstrong doping questions end in February when federal prosecutors closed a two-year criminal investigation without filing charges?

A: The federal probe was an investigation into financial fraud, not a question of whether Armstrong cheated as an athlete.

Armstrong hoped the end of the criminal investigation would end the doping questions. The latest allegations are that he used blood boosters, steroids and other improper performance enhancers and violated sports competition rules, not criminal law. Armstrong can't be put in jail if he's found guilty, but he can be stripped of his titles.

When the federal criminal probe ended, USADA officials warned they would continue investigating Armstrong and their level of proof required when presenting evidence is lower than the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." USADA officials insist their standard of proof is still very high.

Armstrong had suggested in recent interviews he expected charges to be filed and even hinted he may not fight them, saying he was tired of the battle. That would seem unlikely now given his tenacious determination to fight off previous doping allegations during his career.

---
Q: The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency sounds like a branch of the federal government. What is it?

A: Created in 2000, USADA is a nonprofit agency recognized by Congress as the official anti-doping police for U.S. Olympic-related athletes and sports. But it is not a law enforcement agency and does not have the power to bring criminal charges.

The U.S. Olympic Committee recommended creating the agency because its own drug-testing program lacked credibility. USADA is supported financially by the U.S. Olympic Committee and the federal government.

Part of USADA's mission is to not only catch cheaters but to help researchers create new, more sophisticated tests to keep up with evolving cheating techniques.

---
Q: What's at stake for Armstrong?

A: Everything.

From his Tour de France titles to his legacy as the cancer-fighting hero to his foundation that trades on his name to raise millions of dollars to help cancer survivors, it's all on the line.

After his 1999 Tour de France victory, Armstrong wrote a book, "It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life," that helped define him as an inspirational athlete who came back from the brink of death to beat cancer and dominate a grueling sport. Now he allegedly faces evidence that could taint his entire career on the bike.

Armstrong also has legions of fans around the globe due to his work fighting cancer. They may not care about doping in sports. But a formal ruling that he's a cheater, that it's not just innuendo and rumor, could be devastating and a disappointment for many.

---
Q: Doping allegations against Armstrong have gone nowhere before. Is there new evidence?

A: That's unknown. USADA says it has more than 10 former teammates willing to testify they either know Armstrong used performance-enhancing drugs, told them he used them or encouraged their use on his teams. USADA also says it has blood samples from his 2009-10 comeback that show evidence "fully consistent" with blood doping.

USADA hasn't released witness names or the blood samples, despite a demand from Armstrong's attorneys to see them. USADA says it's keeping the names private to prevent retaliation or intimidation, raising speculation Armstrong will file a federal lawsuit to gain access.

Armstrong notes he's passed about 500 drug tests in his career. And in a letter to USADA last week, his attorneys noted the blood samples that allegedly indicate doping came from a time Armstrong passed all his drug tests.

Unlike other sports figures who have been sanctioned after positive drug tests, USADA's case against Armstrong appears to be built around the total weight off the alleged witness testimony and suspicious blood samples.

---
Q: Friday was a paperwork deadline. What happens next?

A: USADA submits its case to a three-person review board of technical, legal and medical experts. The panel reviews the evidence and recommends whether USADA has a strong enough case to pursue charges.

Presuming the case proceeds, it goes to a three-person arbitration panel. Armstrong picks one member, USADA picks another and those two arbitrators pick the third, who acts as the panel chairman. Once that happens, USADA will have to start turning evidence over to Armstrong and his lawyers to review.

Armstrong can contest the charges or accept them. If he challenges USADA, the case goes to a hearing before the arbitration panel where both sides can present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Armstrong can elect to have an open hearing or keep it closed to the public.

Only one athlete, former cyclist Floyd Landis, a former Armstrong teammate who won the 2006 Tour de France and later tested positive for steroid use, chose to have an open hearing and he lost. He later became one of Armstrong's primary accusers.

---
FOR MORE NEW YORK SPORTS CLICK HERE TO VISIT ESPN NEW YORK

---
Get Eyewitness News Delivered

Facebook | Twitter | Newsletters | Text Alerts

(Copyright ©2012 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Get more Sports »

sports

View the original article here

Deadline passes for Occupy Boston without eviction

  By STEVE LeBLANC and LAURA CRIMALDIBOSTON -- A midnight deadline passed on Thursday for Occupy Boston protesters to move from their encampment in the city's financial district, but police did not evict them.

Boston police Supt. William Evans told protesters early Friday that even though Mayor Thomas Menino set a deadline, he did not specify when the camp would be shut down.

"We're continuing to work with (the protesters)... and hopefully come to a good conclusion where we don't have any confrontations and there are no arrests," Evans told reporters.

Menino told the protesters to leave one day after a judge refused to issue a court order that would have barred city officials from removing the protesters.

Demonstrators and their supporters began gathering in Dewey Square hours before the deadline. Occupy groups from Worcester and Providence, R.I., helped swell the ranks, along with university students, a group of Quakers and some veterans, including a Marine in full dress uniform.

About 1,000 people filled the streets around the financial district and a party-like atmosphere reigned as a marching band played music and people sang and danced.

As midnight approached, Occupy Boston members began organizing those demonstrators willing to be arrested, telling them to stay in the encampment and link arms. But the police made no arrests and did not remove any tents.

After protesters chanted "We are the 99 percent" and singing "Solidarity Forever" for several minutes, the band began playing again for the crowd.

About two hours later, some protesters moved a large tent into the middle of a street but police left it there.

Earlier Thursday, Dot Joyce, a spokeswoman for Menino said that if protesters declined to leave "police would do what is necessary and appropriate after midnight tonight."

Until now, Menino has said the city had no plans to forcibly remove the encampment, but he has become increasingly impatient with the protesters in recent days, saying the Dewey Square occupation has become a public health and safety hazard.

The protesters have been encamped there since Sept. 30, modeling their demonstration after Occupy Wall Street. Protesters estimate between 100 and 150 activists live in the Boston encampment.

The threat of forcible removal leaves Boston poised to join several other cities, including New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and San Francisco, where officials moved to oust protesters.

"I think that the mayor used silence as a tactic to win the court case. He never said anything and during radio interviews he said `I'm not saying they have to go, I'm just saying that we want the ability to ask them to go,"' said John Ford, a 30-year-old bookstore owner from Plymouth and a member of the encampment. "Now they want to flip us immediately."

Some Occupy Boston members indicated they would not leave voluntarily.

"If it comes down to it, I will be spending the night in jail," said a protester who identified himself as Mike Smith, 23, of Boston. Smith added that he was not surprised by the order.

"They have been trying to get rid of us from day one," he said.

Other protesters were beginning to pack up.

A small library of books that had been housed in one of the tents was neatly stacked in boxes on one end of the encampment. A food tent was also being dismantled. Protesters said they were hoping to load some of their gear onto vans before the end of the day.

Some said they hoped to find other places nearby to set up their tents.

Eric Binder, a 38-year-old massage therapist from New Mexico and Kentucky who has lived in the camp for the past month, said he may try to move his tent to Boston Common.

"Every town, every city should have a place to peaceably assemble," he said. "Where in the city of Boston can we set up our tents?"

Jeffrey Feuer, a Cambridge lawyer representing Occupy Boston, said Thursday that he would hold off filing a motion with Suffolk Superior Court Judge Frances McIntyre asking for a stay of her Wednesday ruling to allow time for an appeal.

Feuer said he wanted to wait until after protesters held their evening meeting.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and the National Lawyers Guild-Massachusetts issued a joint statement calling on the city and police to refrain from "heavy-handed crackdowns" if they decide to remove protesters.

McIntyre ruled that although the protesters are exercising their rights to freedom of expression from government interference, the occupation of state land is essentially viewed "as a hostile act" that is neither speech "nor is it immune from criminal prosecution for trespass or other crimes."

"This decision clears the way, but does not order the plaintiffs and other protesters to vacate the site and request permission to set up tents or other equipment for expressive purposes" if Occupy Boston protesters wish to continue to stay at the encampment located on land owned by the Rose Kennedy Greenway Conservancy, McIntyre said. "Overnight sleeping and living at Dewey Square are not options under the Conservancy guidelines, however."

At a Dec. 1 hearing, Boston's fire marshal testified that the tent city has numerous serious fire hazards and he feared for the protesters' safety.

McIntyre, in her ruling Wednesday, recognized the central theme of the movement, saying it had brought attention to a perceived increasing disparity of wealth and power in the country.

---
Associated Press writers Bob Salsberg and Jimmy Golen in Boston contributed to this report.

---
GET THE LATEST NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL NEWS FROM ABCNEWS.COM

(Copyright ©2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Get more U.S. & World News »

u.s. & world news

View the original article here

Lawmakers snipe, Wall St. frets as deadline nears

  By JIM KUHNHENNWASHINGTON -- Testy lawmakers pointed fingers at one another and President Barack Obama on Thursday as negotiations over raising the national debt limit entered a perilous endgame. Wall Street eyed the standoff with growing anxiety, warning of catastrophe if the U.S. defaults on its obligations.

Obama's blunt declaration that "enough is enough" as Wednesday's talks ended did nothing to quell the rancor as a new day of positioning and posturing began.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rose on the Senate floor early Thursday to snipe that House Minority Leader Eric Cantor shouldn't even be part of the talks anymore, noting that the Virginia Republican has been called "childish." And not long after, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell stood to serve notice that the debt problem belonged squarely in Obama's lap.

"Republicans will not be reduced to being the tax collectors for the Obama economy," McConnell said. "Don't expect any more cover from Republicans on it than you got on health care. None."

None of it was a promising prelude to negotiations scheduled to resume at the White House on Thursday afternoon, less than three weeks before an Aug. 2 deadline for increasing the government's borrowing authority. Behind the scenes, meanwhile, legislators and White House officials continued to work on a backup plan offered by McConnell to avoid government default.

Obama is demanding that budget negotiators find common ground by week's end, as the financial world watches with growing jitters.

"No one can tell me with certainty that a U.S. default wouldn't cause catastrophe and wouldn't severely damage the U.S. or global economy," Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., told reporters Thursday. "And it would be irresponsible to take that chance."

Already, Moody's Investors Service is reviewing the government's credit rating, saying there is a small but rising risk that the government will default on its debt. If Moody's were to lower the rating, the consequences would ripple through the economy, pushing up rates for mortgages, car loans and other debts. A Chinese rating agency, Dagong Global Credit Rating Co., also warned of a possible downgrade.

Reid sketched the potential consequences of default in dire terms, saying Social Security checks, veterans benefits and paychecks for troops would stop. "Millions of Americans could lose their jobs," he added.

A Reid spokesman later clarified that Social Security benefits "could" stop, as Obama previously had warned, but it wouldn't be a certainty.

Republicans have called such statements scare tactics.

In the cauldron of the White House Cabinet Room, Obama and top lawmakers bargained for nearly two hours Wednesday. Obama curtly ended the session when Cantor, R-Va., urged him to accept a short, monthslong increase in debt instead of one that would last through next year's presidential election.

"Enough is enough. ... I'll see you all tomorrow," Obama said, rising from the negotiating table and leaving the room, according to several officials familiar with the session.

Reid said that while other Republican leaders were willing to negotiate in good faith, Cantor "has shown he shouldn't even be at the table."

The United States hit its current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling in May and the Obama administration says the government will default on its obligations if the debt limit is not increased by Aug. 2.

For a new debt ceiling to last to the end of 2012 would require raising it by about $2.4 trillion.

Republicans, in control of the House of Representatives in part because of the support of tea party activists, say they will not vote to raise the limit if Obama doesn't agree to at least an equal amount of deficit reductions over 10 years.

Obama and the top eight House and Senate leaders met for the fourth time in as many days Wednesday, and, despite the tense ending, agreed to meet again Thursday.

A congressional aide said the White House discussed with lawmakers the possibility of moving talks this weekend to the presidential retreat at Camp David. But a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said the Ohio Republican told the White House he saw no need for that. And Obama aides later said they planned to continue holding meetings at the White House for the next few days.

Cantor, speaking to reporters after Wednesday's meeting, said the White House had been lowering the amount of spending cuts it would put on the table, offering less than $1.4 trillion over 10 years, mostly in domestic and defense spending outside of the major benefits programs Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The White House argued that the total was closer to $1.7 trillion over 10 years when counting about $240 billion in reduced interest payments from the lowered debt.

Earlier, in comments to a small group of reporters before the White House session, Boehner complained that negotiating with the White House "the last couple months has been like dealing with Jell-O."

Democratic officials have portrayed the White House as the more flexible party in the negotiations, willing to cut cherished programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, provided Republicans agree to some increases in revenue. Thursday's meeting was to focus on spending cuts in the two health care programs and on new tax revenue.

With talks reaching a critical stage without real breakthroughs, some Republican and Democratic lawmakers were looking at a plan proposed by McConnell that would give Obama new powers to overcome Republican opposition to raise the debt ceiling.

The proposal would place the burden on Obama to win debt ceiling increases up to three times, provided he was able to override congressional vetoes - a threshold Obama could manage to overcome even without a single Republican vote and without massive spending cuts. Conservatives promptly criticized the plan for giving up the leverage to reduce deficits. But the plan raised the prospect of combining it with some of the spending cuts already identified by the White House in order to win support from conservatives in the House.

In an interview with radio talk-show host Laura Ingraham, McConnell described his plan in stark political terms, warning fellow conservatives that failure to raise the debt limit would probably ensure Obama's re-election in 2012. He predicted that a default would allow Obama to argue that Republicans were making the economy worse.

"You know, it's an argument he has a good chance of winning, and all of a sudden we (Republicans) have co-ownership of a bad economy," McConnell said. "That's a very bad positioning going into an election."

The proposal won praise from two disparate points in the political spectrum - Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic leader Reid of Nevada.

"I am heartened by what I read," Reid said. "This is a serious proposal. And I commend the Republican leader for coming forward."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday that while the president and other Democrats would still prefer a larger agreement, McConnell's plan is an acceptable option - especially if some consensus spending cuts are added to it. He said McConnell and Reid were discussing the idea.

Democratic officials said that even as Obama confronted Cantor and Boehner in Wednesday's meeting, he commended McConnell.

"Sen. McConnell at least has put forth a proposal," a Democratic official quoted the president as saying. "It doesn't reduce the deficit and that's what we have to do. It just deals with the debt limit. Now Sen. McConnell wants me to wear the jacket for that."

The officials said Obama went on to say they all had a responsibility to find a compromise.

----
Associated Press writers Dave Espo, Laurie Kellman, Ben Feller and Erica Werner in Washington and Pallavi Gogoi in New York contributed to this report.

(Copyright ©2011 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) Get more Politics & Elections »

barack obama, republicans, politics & elections

View the original article here