Wow. Things sure are moving fast and furious in the whole Lance Armstrong affair. A quick recap for those who haven’t been following along. The US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) sent Armstrong and five other individuals a letter on June 13th saying that they were being charged with a number of anti-doping-related offenses. Armstrong has been on the offensive since then, issuing a lengthy response and filing a lawsuit against USADA. His initial request for a restraining order and the lawsuit were shot down, because his lawyers didn’t follow the rules for the court where they filed the lawsuit. They have since corrected their paperwork and refiled.
And, this afternoon, it came out that Armstrong’s request for the restraining order has been dropped, while at the same time, USADA has given Armstrong (and only Armstrong) 30 additional days to decide whether he will accept the sanctions or seek to prevail through arbitration. The rest of his lawsuit, however, continues. By August 11th, perhaps the judge in Austin, Texas will have ruled one way or another on whether Armstrong’s case can go forward. Meanwhile, three Armstrong associates received lifetime bans from USADA yesterday, after they elected not to pursue arbitration cases.
Armstrong’s legal team raises a number of questions. One is whether USADA has jurisdiction to bring the case in the first place. If this were a case built on positive test results, the usual chain of command would have been followed. Had the results come from the Tour, they would have gone from the lab to the International Cycling Union (UCI), then to USA Cycling, and then on to USADA for a determination and, if necessary, a prosecution. This is not a case of positive test results, though, and what the proper chain of events would be is, to say the least, murky.
One place to look, however, would be prior non-analytical positive cases, such as those that arose out of the BALCO investigation. If USADA initiated the cases, then Armstrong’s assertion that they don’t have jurisdiction is likely to fail, as they have the same relationship with USA Track & Field as they do with USA Cycling. Very likely, the attorneys representing athletes like Tim Montgomery and Kelli White would have made a similar argument to the arbitration panels hearing their cases. Not quite the same as arguing it in a US court, but my guess is that the decision will probably be the same. If USADA initiated the investigations of Montgomery, White and others, then they will probably prevail on this point. If USATF asked USADA to initiate the investigations, Armstrong’s argument may be a winner.
There is another question of jurisdiction, though. Five of the six people named in USADA’s charging letter live in other countries. Three of those individuals have decided not to contest the charges. According to an article by Amy Shipley of the Washington Post:
Italian doctor Michele Ferrari, Spanish doctor Luis Garcia del Moral and Spanish trainer Jose “Pepi” Marti were banned [by USADA] for life from sanctioned sports events for providing and administering banned performance-enhancing drugs to riders on Armstrong’s U.S. Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams, the agency said in a release.
…
[USADA’s Travis] Tygart said the decisions of Ferrari, Garcia del Moral and Marti to decline to pursue arbitration did not represent an admission of guilt, but Tygart said “they know the truth. They know the evidence we would have presented under oath and that they would have confronted, and they chose the alternative: They are not going to participate.”
I can certainly understand their decision not to contest the charges, from a couple of perspectives. First, if they are truly guilty of the charges, there is no point wasting time and money fighting them. But another reason not to fight would be if they believe that USADA doesn’t have proper jurisdiction and that they don’t have the right to sanction them. In the second case, the “three amigos” could make a strategic choice to not fight USADA, but then appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport on the grounds that USADA doesn’t have the right to prosecute them. That may not be a winning strategy, but I can imagine it happening.
It’s a murky area. Were they riders, then the prosecution under WADA’s rules would have to be by the proper authorities in their home countries. Two others — Johan Bruyneel and Pedro Celaya — have until Saturday to inform USADA whether they will fight the charges. From what I understand, Celaya may have already chosen to fight. Bruyneel, on the other hand, appears not to have made a decision one way or the other. Or if he has, it’s being kept quiet.
One main point of WADA’s rules, which the UCI and USA Cycling and USADA all subscribe to, is that athletes are not subject to prosecution far from home. Instead, the cases are handled by the anti-doping agency of the country where the athlete’s racing license was issued. It seems to me that the same rules would apply to team staff, but as I said, it’s a murky area.
Armstrong claims, among other things, that USADA’s prosecution interferes with his contract with the UCI. I have my doubts about that, but it’s possible, depending on whether the initial request for an investigation must come from either the UCI or USA Cycling. The text that appears on one’s racing license may give a clue. Although I haven’t renewed my USA Cycling license in a couple of years, here is what is printed on my 2010 license:
My use of this license confirms that I agree to know and abide by the applicable rules and regulations of USA Cycling and the UCI, including the anti-doping rules and procedures as set forth by USADA, the UCI or WADA and that I agree to submit to any drug test organized under the rules by the UCI, USA Cycling, USADA or the official anti-doping authority of a foreign country where I am competing.
I’m guessing that it hasn’t changed much in the past couple of years — and that the same or a very similar statement appears on Armstrong’s professional racing licenses issued through USA Cycling. The question boils down to what, exactly, are the written rules regarding anti-doping procedures. Armstrong has a better chance of winning that argument in the US court system, I suspect, than in the anti-doping arbitration system. Given the speed at which his case is moving along, we will probably have an answer sooner, rather than later.
And about Johan Bruyneel. Since he still is the official manager of the RadioShack Nissan Trek squad, I suspect he will want to keep on with that work. Which means that he will fight USADA’s charges. Whether he does that by engaging them in the US, or by going directly to the CAS to argue that they don’t have the jurisdiction to take action against him is the big question in my mind. Probably won’t be long before we get an answer to that one, too.
Rant, I looked at the CAS decisions for Montgomery and Gaines (both opted to go straight to the CAS for their initial hearings). I cannot find any evidence that these athletes challenged USADA’s jurisdiction to bring a case against them. I note that IAAF appeared in the Montgomery and Gaines arbitrations as a party, but I don’t think we can read this to mean that IAAF had any say in the initiation of these cases. As best as I can tell, USADA brought these cases on its own without any express “thumbs up” from IAAF or any other sports governing authority.
Still, it appears in the Montgomery and Ganes cases that USADA proceeded under IAAF rules. So I’d conclude that the governing rules in USADA’s intended prosecution of Armstrong are those of UCI.
I have not done much research, but I think the place to begin making arguments is under the UCI Anti-Doping rules. USADA has claimed that it has jurisdiction over this case under UCI Anti-Doping rules 10, 13 and 18. Rule 13 addresses anti-doping rule violations by a non-citizen and Rule 18 addresses non-license-holders, so it appears that USADA is claiming jurisdiction against Armstrong under UCI Rule 10.
Rule 10 states that the UCI has jurisdiction over any anti-doping case brought by USADA “where no Sample collection is involved”. This makes it seem like UCI and not USADA would have to prosecute the case against Armstrong. However, Rule 10 is qualified by Rule 12, which states that “UCI may decide to leave [a Rule 10] case to the Anti-Doping Organization concerned.” Thus if the Armstrong case is a Rule 10 case, USADA can proceed to prosecute the case without UCI’s participation, so long as UCI has “decided” to leave the case to USADA. If I’m Armstrong, I’m arguing that Rule 12 requires the UCI to actually make a decision, and if I’m USADA, I’m arguing that Rule 12 allows USADA to proceed unless UCI raises an objection. I think that Armstrong has the better argument, but reasonable minds may differ.
But if I’m Armstrong, I’m also arguing that Rule 10 does not apply here, as USADA intends to introduce evidence regarding samples collected from Armstrong in 2009 and 2010 (and perhaps in 2001). On this basis, UCI Rule 10 appears not to be applicable, as Rule 10 clearly states that it applies “where no Sample collection is involved.” The problem is, if Rule 10 doesn’t apply here, then it seems like the applicable UCI rules are those for “Results Management”, which requires an Adverse Analytical Finding, review of the test results by UCI, B Sample testing, and all the other procedures we remember from the Landis case. If I’m Armstrong, I’m asking the federal court to issue an injunction against USADA’s prosecution, as USADA wants to prosecute Armstrong based in part on Sample collection but no such Results Management has taken place.
So if I’m Armstrong, I’m arguing that USADA cannot proceed without a UCI “decision”, and that in any event USADA cannot introduce doping test evidence unless UCI goes through its usual Results Management process.
I have not tried to analyze the rules any further than this, and of course I may have missed something
Um. Look at what I just found. http://bit.ly/ND2GgE. The question of USADA jurisdiction over non-analytical positive cases WAS addressed by the CAS in the Montgomery and Gaines cases. The CAS found that this jurisdiction exists under something called the “USADA Protocol”, and that Montgomery and Gaines were subject to the USADA Protocol by reason of their membership in USATF, as well as their association with the U.S. Olympic Committee.
On this point, it DOES appear that USA Cycling has adopted the USADA Protocol. So to this extent, it would appear that the reasoning used to find jurisdiction in the Montgomery and Gaines cases would also apply to the Armstrong case.
However …
… Montgomery and Gaines had argued that the contract between USADA and USATF did not give USADA the power to bring non-analytical positive cases. The CAS decision found this power in the USADA Protocol. But the argument I have Armstrong making is different: it acknowledges that USADA DOES have the power to bring non-analytical positive cases against cyclists under the UCI rules, BUT argues that this power is subject to the conditions set forth in those UCI rules … that UCI must make a “decision” to allow the case to go forward, and that the case must be one where no Sample collection is involved.
This would leave USADA with the difficult job of arguing that its protocol overrides UCI’s rules.
Money and Connections.. Money and Connections… wow. I don’t think Lance is going down.. http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=303025
Larry,
Thanks for doing the research and analysis. This Armstrong case is turning out to be very interesting, including the latest twist.
AC,
Funny about that. I wrote to my Congressman (who happens to be James Sensenbrenner, of all people) back in late 2006 or the first part of 2007, expressing my concerns over how USADA was prosecuting the Landis case and how the system is rigged to find athletes guilty. I suggested, at the time, that perhaps Congress should exercise some oversight. His letter back, as I recall, said something to the effect that since USADA was a private agency funded by the White House, Congress really couldn’t exercise any oversight. And now … well, he’s saying exactly the opposite.
Wish I could find Sensenbrenner’s response. It would be fun to call him on this, but for now, he catches a break. It hasn’t turned up in my files — yet.
You’re right. Money and connections. Lance hires Rove’s lawyer to defend himself against USADA. Rove is very well connected on Capitol Hill, including to Congressman Sensenbrenner. Amazing what can happen at the intersection of Money Street and Connections Avenue, eh?
Rant, don’t forget that your representative is a Republican, this is an election year and the President belongs to a different party than he did in 2006. Not that Armstrong’s Congressional connections are only Republicans … but I suspect that party politics explains the Hon. Sensenbrenner’s apparent loss of love for USADA.
Larry,
I think you guess correctly. Politics plays a big role in this. Armstrong is well-connected on both sides of the aisle, or so I’m told. If need be, I’m sure he could reach out to a powerful Democrat, too.
Ferrari says he was not notified about the charges other than via the media. “A USADA spokeswoman told the AP that the charges were hand delivered to him in person at his home.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ferrari-denies-all-charges-and-all-knowledge-of-usada-case
I’m not going to debate if Ferrari should be banned for life or not in this post. However, I tend to give Ferrari the benefit of doubt regarding notification of charges. The un-named USADA spokeswoman failed to provide information related to how service was accomplished. Who hand delivered? When did hand delivery take place? How is delivery being confirmed?
There are professionals who do this for a living. Surely USADA could have employed such an agency to take some of the mystery out of the process?
Jeff, so when Tygart said that Ferrari and the others “chose not to waste resources by moving forward with the arbitration process, which would only reveal what they already know to be the truth of their doping activity,” what he really meant was that he never heard from Ferrari and the others? Sheesh. And people wonder why I don’t believe a word that Tygart says.
It’s a MAD MAD MAD MAD world for sure. AustinCyclist, thanks for posting the link to that letter to the USADA…never heard of this congressman before, but I LOVE him now!
I think it’s about time SOMEBODY in DC looked into TT’s little empire of being judge, jury and exceutioner (not to mention their own little congress as they are the ones making the laws).
As to whether LA did or did not do the deed’s he’s now accused of, I agree he deserves a FAIR hearing (ie, in a court, not in the sham arbitration hearing which is stacked 2 to 1 FOR the USADA where he is guilty until proven innocent). I’m just a bit unsure if THIS is the best use of our tax dollars, no matter which way it turns out.
It’s good to have powerful friends, as it IS who you know in life, like it or not. I bet this letter made TT’s veins pop out of his head, which makes me smile just thinking about it.
WOW
John McCain is on Team USADA!
http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=81e65d04-d3a5-57a6-a985-0c2ebfaa3cb0
So far, this is the slowest roll call in the history of C-SPAN.
The interesting thing is Sensenbrenner, who I’ve never heard of until his LA support, got alot of media coverage for his letter. ALOT.
McCain, who is very well recognized, got next to none for his support of USADA. very strange.
McCain is no stranger to usada, check out his balco history…
Why didn’t Bruyneel file suit in an EU court? He could have made many of the same arguments as Armstrong. This would have doubled the burn rate of USADA resources. He can’t win this fight….
Bruyneel can only sue in Belgium (his country) or in France because doping acts were there. He cannot argue unfairness of WADA, before arbitration has happened, that is probably the same in USA. IUnfortunately for him, those 2 countries have civil anti-doping laws, so I doubt that he wants to have Justice of those countries directly involved in his doping case. In France he could be faced for 7 years if he has taken part at a doping ring.
austincyclist: I have a lot of respect for McCain for his service, especially when he, as a downed Pilot, acted heroically while imprisoned during the Viet Nam War.
Apparently, politics can cause you to loose your grasp on what is important more easily than torture during imprisonment?
Here is my take on his statement (my take):
July 13, 2012
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today released the following statement expressing his support for the US Anti-Doping Agency and its investigation of Lance Armstrong, a USA Cycling athlete, while he was a member of the professional cycling team sponsored by the US Postal Service.
“While the charges are serious (yes), and I expect the process to be fair (it won’t be close to fair), I fully support USADA (McCain’s right) and its right to undertake the investigation of, and bring charges against, Lance Armstrong (That question has not been resolved. I believe USADA is grandstanding/over-reaching and certainly does not have the right to go back beyond the 8 year statue of limitations without a creative reading of its own rules, in the extreme). USADA is authorized by Congress (yes) and provides assurances to taxpayers (no), fans and competitors that sports in America are clean (no). USADA’s rules and processes, approved by America’s athletes (athletes under USADA’s umbrella only have the choice to accept USADA’s rules or not compete in their sport. That does not equate to a vote of approval), the United States Olympic Committee (along with the IoC, the real criminals) and all U.S. sport federations (not all U.S. sport federations), apply to all athletes regardless of their public profile or success in sport (USADA is much more capricious than McCain gives them credit). This process is the proper forum to decide matters concerning individual cases of alleged doping violations.” (Maybe/probably not)
I’ll try to give McCain the benefit of the doubt and assume his blanket support of USADA is really a blanket stance against doping and that he doesn’t understand what USADA is all about.
This will make it a little more difficult for me to defend Armstrong based on his work for charity: http://on.wsj.com/MBVZcd.
To me, LA’s charity work is immaterial. He’s either guilty or not, USADA may or may not have jurisdiction, and the 8 year SOL may or may not apply: those are the questions that needed to be answered and an official “no” to either of the first 2 and LA is home free, while a no to the third limits the potential damage to more recent years.
Is it with Livestrong’s lobbying that Lance get support of Sensenbrenner who appears to be a strange congressman prefering money to reality as his position of global warming…
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/article_dd139984-1d95-5584-940f-ea8e0bb23feb.html#ixzz20ZfA5O3g
If USADA were not to have juridiction according US laws, that could be an infringement to WADA rules. It seems that would lead to put all US athletes out of IOC events. What would happen if justice decision was happening during London JO. Of course, probably USADA would contest it to another court and so… but if at the end of the US justice procedures, athletes could have to send back their medals!
If Lance is not prosecuted by USADA, that should be the task of WADA to it, maybe through CAS.
Now, I hope that Lance will chose an open hearing that we will see the alleged unfairness. As pointed, even USADA diserve a fair treatment, it seems that they are victim of witch-hunt.
I would suspect that Sensenbrenner’s interest in the case has mostly to do with the location of Trek Bicycle’s headquarters, in Waterloo, WI.
Heatwave,
That may be, but @TrekBikes on Twitter has been saying something different. Officially, Sensenbrenner becomes their representative after the November election. Still, since he’s going to be their man in the future, they might have talked to him about the situation. I don’t know if John Burke, Trek’s owner, leans Democratic or Republican, though that might not matter much. If their biggest sponsored athlete goes down in flames, it could have a negative effect on the Trek brand, given their long association. I can imagine they might want to take some steps to defend their brand, including trying to put a stop to the USADA investigation.
This ain’t going to help Johan and crew with their case, even though it may not be related in any way. That old guilt by association thing is hard to shake!
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-announces-adverse-analytical-finding-for-frank-schleck-at-tour-de-france
Although, I really have to wonder why the UCI announces this crap when it is only the A sample that has been tested!
http://nyti.ms/NwJDCW
If Hincapie is prepared to testify for USADA and tell essentially the same story that Landis and Hamilton have told, then Armstrong will not contest this case in arbitration … there would be no point. He could not win.
Schleck:
When there is a doping case on Tour de France, it’s difficult to keep it secret because the rider has to leave the race and police is automatically involved. So better to face the sitaution to avoid more damage.
Bruyneel and Lance could only escape sanction because of political issues that is the main reason for Lance to attack USADA politically.
Since
Jean raises an interesting potential problem: does the WADA/USADA process conflict with US laws? If so, then in my opinion, US laws should trump WADA in any case in the US, regardless of the possible fallout for US athletes. The same should be true for any other country. Whether or not there is such a conflict I will leave to others to decide.
WS, to my knowledge there are no U.S. laws that conflict with the WADA/USADA process. To the contrary, U.S. law is about as friendly as you can get when it comes to deciding matters via commercial arbitration. Moreover, let’s keep in mind that the U.S. is not required to have a USADA. As we saw in the Contador case, Spain has nothing like USADA – it was the Spanish Cycling Federation that proposed a one year ban and later decided to impose no ban at all.
The argument I’ve made here on behalf of Armstrong is based on the rules of the UCI. Remember that Armstrong is being accused by USADA of violating UCI’s anti-doping rules. To reiterate, I believe that these rules (1) prevent USADA from moving against Armstrong unless UCI decides to allow USADA to move forward, and (2) prevent USADA from bringing a non-analytical positive case against Armstrong based on evidence derived from doping tests taken in-competition. So long as USADA is proceeding under UCI rules, it has to take these rules as it finds them. This is not a principle that is unique to U.S. law!
It may be possible for WADA to bring a case against Armstrong if USADA’s case fails. I haven’t tried to figure that one out.
I think it’s far-fetched to imagine that the Armstrong case could have an effect on U.S. participation in IOC events. Let’s remember that first and foremost, the IOC’s anti-doping concern is focused on athletes who fail doping tests. If the IOC is concerned about the efforts made in individual countries to investigate and prosecute non-analytical positives, then their focus would have to extend way beyond the Armstrong case. I think if you look at the U.S. prosecution of non-analytical positive cases after BALCO, this record compares favorably to, say, Spain’s prosecution of such cases after Operacion Puerto.
@Larry
I agree that if Hincapie gives corroborating testimony at an arbitration hearing, Lance is toast… although that article is heavy on insinuation and weak on sourced statements.
But this is what I don’t get: If Hincapie has testified to being aware of a major doping ring, how the hell is he riding in the Tour right now? The ASO certainly has inside info from the WADA, which would mean the USADA is playing fast and loose with not only the UCI but the WADA as well..
Or perhaps Hincapie only testified to the Grand Jury, but not separately to the USADA? But if the USADA has access to the Grand Jury testimony, that would considerably bolster Armstrong’s claim that they’re a state actor..
It seems to me at this point that Rant’s Moby Dick reference rings very true, and Tygart doesn’t care how many bridges he’s burning to get Lance.
Nico, remember that Hincapie — along with Levi Leipheimer, Christian Vande Velde and David Zabriskie — opted out of spots on the 2012 US Olympic Team. All 4 riders are ex-teammates of Armstrong, and we might guess that all 4 might be lined up to testify in the Armstrong case. I haven’t seen anyone speculate for the reasons behind the opt-out, but this looks like something orchestrated by USADA, USA Cycling, USOC — the key being U.S. sports organizations. Evidently USADA did not care whether these guys rode in France so long as they did not ride in London.
Larry,
To clarify the point I was trying to make: ASO has been extremely aggressive in banning riders who are implicated in current doping investigations, often by threatening their team with a invitation loss. I can’t believe that LL, CVV DZ or GH would be at the Tour this year if ASO had any knowledge of their participation in an active doping investigation.
ASO certainly has access inside WADA, as we’ve seen repeatedly over the years. So the presence of the GH et al. indicate to me that WADA is unaware of their participation in any investigation (if they are indeed the witnesses)… which is why I was suggesting that USADA is playing fast and loose with UCI and WADA..
Nico, good points, but ASO may not want to punish riders for agreeing to testify against Armstrong … and they may not care if these 4 race so long as none of them are on the podium in Paris.
Thanks for the clarification Larry. I wasn’t suggesting that USADA Et al are operating contra to US law, but responding to Jean post where he mentioned a possible conflict. On the other hand, LA has filed in court to halt the USADA, and if the court were to rule in his favor, one could argue that this would be “US law”.
According WSJ, Lance had approved the so-called “kangourou court” in 2005 during SCA affair.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444330904577537673199762652.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Dcomments
USADA challenges Lance about his 500-600 tests ;D
http://nyvelocity.com/files/u18/Exhibit1%28Chart%29.pdf
http://www.bigcitydev.com/sites/default/files/gov.uscourts.txwd.567100.33.5.pdf
Difficult to be coherent when someone constantly lies.
USADA is throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks. What’s that Chewbacca? Oh to be a fly in Sam Sparks office…
I don’t see how anyone can blame Johan Bruyneel for the Frank Schleck thing. Since the day those two teams merged, Frank & Andy Schleck have done nothing that Bruyneel told them to. Why should this be any different?
I am curious about the grand jury testimony in the recently concluded investigation. Now that the investigation is over and the government has decided not to pursue it further, is that testimony available to USADA? I would imagine that they have a pretty good idea what was said from unofficial sources, but could they, for example, use the GJ testimony to impeach a witness who might decide to alter his testimony at a hearing?
WS, your questions are way beyond the area of my experience or expertise. But it’s been speculated elsewhere that USADA has access to the evidence given by witnesses to government investigators, but not the Grand Jury testimony. It’s also been reported that Travis Tygart sat in on some of the feds’ interviews of witnesses in the Armstrong investigation.
If you’re looking for an interesting anti-USADA article, read this: http://bit.ly/NHq0sg
Thanks for the link Larry. To paraphrase the end of the article:
I am a Lance hater, and it pains me to think that he doped and might get away with it, but in light of USADA’s Orwellian power grab, I am pulling for him this time.
If LA were to prevail based on the question of jurisdiction, or some other legal “technicality”, it would perhaps lead to some alteration of USADA powers. But if he prevails based on evidence or lack thereof, it will do little, perhaps even lead them to try more Orwellian methods in order to get suspected dopers. And of course, if USADA prevails, then we get more of the same.
You’ll enjoy this. Pat McQuaid reacts to the results of the men’s Olympic road race:
http://twitpic.com/acr57l
So, if Stapleton signed some of Armstong’s USA Cycling applications, does that give Armstrong an escape hatch? It seems to me that would raise issues of agency, and whether Stapleton had authority do so, and whether USA Cycling could accept and rely upon Stapleton’s signature as binding. Where is Stapleton’s the power of attorney? Oh, this could get very very interesting…. I hope Sam Sparks digs into all these little details before he lets this out of his court room.
Here is a very interesting read regarding doping and an amateur Cat 3 rider:
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/08/news/in-search-of-relevance-a-cat-3-turns-to-epo-and-hgh_232611
Hamilton has now been stripped of his 2004 Olympic medal and the other finishers have been moved up accordingly.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/11/sport/olympics-hamilton-doping/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I wonder why they took this long?
Vaughters: “I chose to dope”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-doping-out-of-sports.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
I wonder who will step up next…?
Hmm. Must be about time to write a new post. All sorts of interesting possibilities and angles.