Ferrari:There's No Evidence I Doped - Page 3 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-18-12, 19:27
spetsa's Avatar
spetsa spetsa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle
Posts: 451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
I am simply reporting what Ferrari said. Suggest you listen to the interview which includes mention of court action against USADA

Nothing to do with " WADA code"
USADA is on firm ground with their decision. If he was doing anything other than talking crap, he would be talking about suing the riders that named him. Good luck with that.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-18-12, 19:29
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
I am simply reporting what Ferrari said. Suggest you listen to the interview which includes mention of court action against USADA

Nothing to do with " WADA code"
But he has been rightfully sanctioned under the WADA Code. Suggest you refer to your oft quoted jurist, Judge Sam Sparks. It's too late for alternatives. Ferrari's only opportunity was to go to arbitration.

You attempt to show more familiarity with US law than your native UK law. Odd.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-18-12, 20:13
howsteepisit howsteepisit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 58
Default

MRM is just reporting what Ferrari said. I agree it would be interesting if Ferrari could get a US case going. And I am not any too confident in legal opinions on matters of US law rendered on an international bicycle forum, by readers who have not actually reviewed actual case files, legal precedents, nor interviewed the potential plaintiffs.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-18-12, 20:28
spetsa's Avatar
spetsa spetsa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle
Posts: 451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
I do not know whether doctors who attach to riding teams have UCI "approval" or enter into an agreement with UCI or other federations? , I have not heard of such agreements. The "teeth" that USADA have over riders stems from their license agreements with federations and carries the obligation to use arbitration and USADA process.

If Ferrari has no cycling "license" he is free to use the US courts to attack USADA using all available legislation such as defamation, restraint of trade etc etc. which will demand normal evidential standards.

It is not the first time an athlete has gone against federations in open court - years ago Butch Reynolds took the US federation all the way to supreme court and won. In cycling Heras has done so and won in spain.

It will make for interesting times if Ferrari does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by howsteepisit View Post
MRM is just reporting what Ferrari said. I agree it would be interesting if Ferrari could get a US case going. And I am not any too confident in legal opinions on matters of US law rendered on an international bicycle forum, by readers who have not actually reviewed actual case files, legal precedents, nor interviewed the potential plaintiffs.
Ah yes, YOU were just repeating what the good doctor said in the interview.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-18-12, 20:44
spetsa's Avatar
spetsa spetsa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: between a bar stool and a bike saddle
Posts: 451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
It is not the first time an athlete has gone against federations in open court - years ago Butch Reynolds took the US federation all the way to supreme court and won.



http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-..._supreme-court

This reporter must have read the ruling incorrectly
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-18-12, 20:55
Benotti69's Avatar
Benotti69 Benotti69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 12,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
I am simply reporting what Ferrari said. Suggest you listen to the interview which includes mention of court action against USADA

Nothing to do with " WADA code"
We have the link, why do you need to report it? oh i forgot that's what you do here, take the side of the dopers, doping docs and doping DSs.
__________________
"ahaha, ever had the feeling you been cheated?" JL SF Jan'78
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-18-12, 21:06
noddy69 noddy69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 416
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
In the interview he does not appear to be trying to pick legal nits, or carefully choosing words as suggested above.

He says several times in a variety of ways "nothing to do with doping"

He also says they are considering US legal action against USADA which could prove interesting if it is happens and is more than an empty threat.

I do not know whether doctors who attach to riding teams have UCI "approval" or enter into an agreement with UCI or other federations? , I have not heard of such agreements. The "teeth" that USADA have over riders stems from their license agreements with federations and carries the obligation to use arbitration and USADA process.

If Ferrari has no cycling "license" he is free to use the US courts to attack USADA using all available legislation such as defamation, restraint of trade etc etc. which will demand normal evidential standards.

It is not the first time an athlete has gone against federations in open court - years ago Butch Reynolds took the US federation all the way to supreme court and won. In cycling Heras has done so and won in spain.

It will make for interesting times if Ferrari does it.
yes I can see the restraint of trade one going well alright.

"yes my patients all took epo but I didnt give it to them and certainly never talked about it to them, its all a coincidence your honour I swear.Just because they all did it doesnt mean I had anything to do with it Its defamation I never told them too,their adults I just talked about my time trial skills up mountains.......what your honour...oh yes I did do it pretty fast,...no no your honour I never gave epo to myself nor did I talk about it to myself.......whats that ? Why did I meet Lance in campervans in secret.....why to give him the bill for fixing his bunions......yes your honour they were million dollar bunions, you dont realise how important that is for a super human like Lance.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-18-12, 21:32
Race Radio's Avatar
Race Radio Race Radio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,176
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post

It is not the first time an athlete has gone against federations in open court - years ago Butch Reynolds took the US federation all the way to supreme court and won. .
Do you actually believe this crap or just write it to get a response and clog up the forum?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-19-12, 09:17
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Race Radio View Post
Do you actually believe this crap or just write it to get a response and clog up the forum?
Race radio. I commented on information with information - that is Ferrari did not appear to be using clever forms of words to sidestep questions as suggested by another poste

He may have been lying through his teeth - but he said "no involvement with doping" in various ways, also that he was actively examining court action against USADA - he said "court action" not "arbitration" which should interest observers of this process, and so it is worth considering why he said "court". It has also been done - that is Heras took the federation through spanish courts rather than cyclings own processes, and I believe the hold cycling has over doctors is weaker than it is over riders who are obliged to use arbitration first.

I think it unlikely he will, and certainly not until the italian investigations have concluded. The suggestion he might is interesting none the less. Why say it if he is not considering it?

What clogs up the forum is ad hominem posts devoid of content such as yours above.

[BTW - Butch Reynolds won huge damages against the US federation and rightly so. What the US supreme ruled on was a matter of jurisdiction, not his rightness of claim or entitlement to it. In short telling him he had to go after the international federation instead: I have said before one reason international sporting authorities such as IAAF, UCI, FIFA all hide in places like monaco and switzerland, and want local federations to declare sanctions in first instance, is so that the assets are protected from actions by athletes and to make legal challenge difficult when they get it wrong -by deliberately muddying the waters of jurisdiction - as they did in the Diane Modahl case and in that case it bankrupted the federation.
The main takeaway from both of those, is doping "justice" is far from flawless]

Last edited by mountainrman; 12-19-12 at 09:27.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-19-12, 09:47
red_flanders's Avatar
red_flanders red_flanders is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,405
Default

The thing to do when your statements have been clearly shown to be factually incorrect is to admit it and move on. Please do not continue to pile more misinformation on the heap attempt to confuse the issue.

The topic is Ferrari. Thanks.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:13.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.