Ferrari:There's No Evidence I Doped - Page 4 - 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
  #31  
Old 12-19-12, 11:23
frenchfry's Avatar
frenchfry frenchfry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bourgogne
Posts: 1,618
Default

From wikipedia:

Quote:
That same year Reynolds also won a libel suit against the IAAF, and was awarded $27.3 million in damages. The IAAF stated that the ruling, made in Ohio, had no bearing upon the organisation and was invalid. A federal appeals panel later overturned the verdict on jurisdictional grounds.
__________________
"C'est une triste chose de songer que la nature parle et que le genre humain n'ecoute pas" - Victor Hugo
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-19-12, 11:26
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red_flanders View Post
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.
The point at issue is whether Ferrari can bring an action against USADA - which he claims he is considering - and that is a fact.

The statement I made on Reynolds was incorrect but only on a point of detail - irrelevant to the thread.

I cited the reynolds case as proven example I knew that you can win vindication in a sport case in a US court on the basis of evidence despite sport having declared you guilty. Which he did, in a court in Ohio. So it is true. And also heras in spain. The point I was trying to make was that Reynolds won the case on whether he had been defamed, despite having lost in sport hearings and been sanctioned by sport.

The fact that Reynolds was later overturned on appeal on jurisdictional grounds not veracity of argument is largely irrelevant to this. USADA are in the US. They cannot use the IAAF "we are not in the US argument" used in the Reynolds case.

I knew he had never got a penny which is why I am critical of UCI, IAAF, FIFA etc hiding in jurisdictions to avoid litigation. Also out of interest, in the aftermath of that case it was widely recognised that it was far easier for a non US claimant to take action against a US corporation, that it is the reverse as the Reynolds case , and is why the Reynolds case itself was considered in subsequent attempts to redraft the "Hague convention on international civil enforcement." So it was clearly considered a miscarriage of justice, when used as an argument to change international conventions.

Back to the issue at hand. Ferrari says he is "not guilty of involvement in doping" and is considering action against USADA

That should be of interest to the clinic.

I doubt he will certainly until the Italian investigations are over,

Last edited by mountainrman; 12-19-12 at 12:00.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-19-12, 13:57
Race Radio's Avatar
Race Radio Race Radio is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,158
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
The point at issue is whether Ferrari can bring an action against USADA - which he claims he is considering - and that is a fact.

The statement I made on Reynolds was incorrect but only on a point of detail - irrelevant to the thread.

I cited the reynolds case as proven example I knew that you can win vindication in a sport case in a US court on the basis of evidence despite sport having declared you guilty. Which he did, in a court in Ohio. So it is true. And also heras in spain. The point I was trying to make was that Reynolds won the case on whether he had been defamed, despite having lost in sport hearings and been sanctioned by sport.

The fact that Reynolds was later overturned on appeal on jurisdictional grounds not veracity of argument is largely irrelevant to this. USADA are in the US. They cannot use the IAAF "we are not in the US argument" used in the Reynolds case.

I knew he had never got a penny which is why I am critical of UCI, IAAF, FIFA etc hiding in jurisdictions to avoid litigation. Also out of interest, in the aftermath of that case it was widely recognised that it was far easier for a non US claimant to take action against a US corporation, that it is the reverse as the Reynolds case , and is why the Reynolds case itself was considered in subsequent attempts to redraft the "Hague convention on international civil enforcement." So it was clearly considered a miscarriage of justice, when used as an argument to change international conventions.

Back to the issue at hand. Ferrari says he is "not guilty of involvement in doping" and is considering action against USADA

That should be of interest to the clinic.

I doubt he will certainly until the Italian investigations are over,
You might want to dial it back a bit. The trolling is too obvious.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-19-12, 14:12
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
[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]
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
The statement I made on Reynolds was incorrect but only on a point of detail - irrelevant to the thread.

I knew he had never got a penny which is why I am critical of UCI, IAAF, FIFA etc hiding in jurisdictions to avoid litigation. Also out of interest, in the aftermath of that case it was widely recognised that it was far easier for a non US claimant to take action against a US corporation, that it is the reverse as the Reynolds case , and is why the Reynolds case itself was considered in subsequent attempts to redraft the "Hague convention on international civil enforcement." So it was clearly considered a miscarriage of justice, when used as an argument to change international conventions.
Great way to earn some respect from others.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-19-12, 16:22
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
but do you believe this claim by ferrari? evidence of large payments from

and dodgy secret meetings with lance in his camper van makes me doubt

that ferrari is honest

it seems all bluster...............that he wants to appear like an honest doctor

while the truth is he does whatever possible to make max $
No I do not believe Ferrari - but there is little point in saying he is considering action if he is not, and he actually says that all of the riders who named him were not actually clients of his which raises an interesting question mark as to how he may challenge.

I am going to read the affidavits which Tygart referenced. The first mentioned illustrates a lack of clarity and maybe that is the weapon ferrari would use. The first mentioned in the RD which is Vandevelde's. Who says "I understood what lance meant was to get with Ferraris doping program". Not exactly a slamdunk. Let us see what more there is..

So whilst I doubt it will happen, I doubt if he would dare, such a case would be interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-19-12, 16:44
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spetsa View Post
Great way to earn some respect from others.
Hard to see what your post even means.

I can only say again - the kind of action it sounds like Ferrari was considering against USADA when he said it the interview is perhaps a loss of earnings or defamation case - so it is interesting to note whether such a case has been won as a result of challenging a sporting decision in the US courts.

And the answer is it has. I raised the Reynolds case from memory because I knew he had done just that in the past: and on evidential grounds he won huge damages. Which is true.

I also knew and have said on other threads long ago he never got a penny - because sports jurisdiction is a real problem and jurisdiction not lack of claim is how IAAF managed to avoid paying in the Reynolds case. That too is perfectly true and will not be a problem for Ferrari because USADA are in the US!

The truth might well be against ferrari of course.. I thought it interesting he had even considered it.

So what point are you trying to make?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-19-12, 17:02
86TDFWinner's Avatar
86TDFWinner 86TDFWinner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,049
Default

I believe if you go back in the thread, you'll see that Ferrari cant sue USADA. Go back and give a looksy.
__________________
Quote:
"According to Mrs LeMond, Armstrong said: "There's no way you could have won your Tour de Frances without EPO." And Greg got very angry and said, "Listen, I won my - I was third in 1984, I was second in 1985, I won in 1986. This type of drug did not exist.The difference between you and me is that I have a 95 VO2 max and you have an 82, and you're - you don't - basically you don't know what you're talking about."(Proving Wonderboy is a clueless, lying POS)
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-19-12, 17:14
howsteepisit howsteepisit is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 58
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86TDFWinner View Post
I believe if you go back in the thread, you'll see that Ferrari cant sue USADA. Go back and give a looksy.
sorry, I cant seem to find the legal opinion/precedence which prevents Ferrari from filing suit. Could you please point out said item? (note this wold exclude an anonymous internet poster's opinion of what may or may not be doable under the relevant jurisdiction?)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-19-12, 17:14
mountainrman mountainrman is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 86TDFWinner View Post
I believe if you go back in the thread, you'll see that Ferrari cant sue USADA. Go back and give a looksy.
Missed it. Thanks will go look. Any idea where?

[Update just found this..] posted by someone earlier

"He has foregone any prospective claim against USADA by passing on arbitration.

UCI/WADA rules made it clear and unambiguous that a non licensed person involved in the preparation and support of a licensed rider is subject to the rules as a licensed person (UCI Rule 18).

If Armstrong with his battery of high powered lawyers could not fault the USADA process then Ferrari is just p.ss.ng in the wind."

The problem with that is as far as I know there is no contract binding an unlicensed person to follow the code : so whilst LA for example is bound by contract to go through the "sporting route"
It is hard to see what would stop ferrari, so it is hard to see how USADA lawyers could get it dismissed in court on that basis. The code can only be enforced against those who have signed up to it directly or indirectly.

Other than the truth that is, which seems a powerful bar to it happening!

I have not read them but the two italian rider affidavits mentioned by USADA given as part of the italian investigation apparently demonstrate Ferrari connections to doping.

Last edited by mountainrman; 12-19-12 at 17:23.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-19-12, 17:31
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
Missed it. Thanks will go look. Any idea where?

[Update just found this..] posted by someone earlier

"He has foregone any prospective claim against USADA by passing on arbitration.

UCI/WADA rules made it clear and unambiguous that a non licensed person involved in the preparation and support of a licensed rider is subject to the rules as a licensed person (UCI Rule 18).

If Armstrong with his battery of high powered lawyers could not fault the USADA process then Ferrari is just p.ss.ng in the wind."

The problem with that is as far as I know there is no contract binding an unlicensed person to follow the code : so whilst LA for example is bound by contract to go through the "sporting route"
It is hard to see what would stop ferrari, so it is hard to see how USADA lawyers could get it dismissed in court on that basis. The code can only be enforced against those who have signed up to it directly or indirectly.

Other than the truth that is, which seems a powerful bar to it happening!

I have not read them but the two italian rider affidavits mentioned by USADA given as part of the italian investigation apparently demonstrate Ferrari connections to doping.

We went through this two pages ago and you are back to the same crap. USADA wrote a response that was based on rider testimony. If Ferrari is upset, he can try to sue them. If any claims were made up in the form of lies, they came from the riders themselves, not the USADA.

NOW STOP YOUR BS, AND MOVE ON.
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 20:58.


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.