The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back... - Page 73 - 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
  #721  
Old 02-10-13, 19:39
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkvW View Post
Oops. I was wrong about SCA suing Lance. Sorry. That's not material to what I'm saying, though.

The original litigation was resolved by the settlement agreement. The arbitrator's decision wasn't the product of fraud--it was directed by the settlement agreement, which wasn't a product of fraud.

There is still the big question of just how much Lance does not want to be deposed under oath. That deposition would probably be days long and will cover every single detail of his doping and facilitating and smuggling, etc. Lance's reluctance to be deposed has a money value and we don't know what it is. Lance has tried to signal, via Oprah, that the money value of avoiding a deposition is not that much to him, but he's a liar so we take that FWIW.

My settlement agreement discussion isn't particularly controversial. I suggest presenting all this stuff to friends who are real lawyers so you can hear what they have to say.
Thanks for acknowledging that. I say it is material, because this represents the foundation of the argument.

Doesn't it seem odd to build a case upon the result of the arbitration process, when you didn't even know what the basis of the dispute was? This is exactly what you have done.

Maybe it is just me, but I find that odd.

You know what they say about building houses or arguments on shaky foundations.

I do have friends that are lawyers, even some that are litigators. Some of my litigator friends have produced virtual miracles in the past. Some have taken on clients even more despicable than Lance. Others have provided valuable counsel to not pursue litigation when I felt more than justified.

Even they could not pull this one off

While you have made a number of interesting points and observations, I hope that Lance's lawyers do even better. They will need to. Otherwise, they don't have a chance in he!!.

Even some of my litigator friends would agree with that.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #722  
Old 02-10-13, 20:40
Wallace and Gromit Wallace and Gromit is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,154
Default

Chewy - Are you saying that Lance never actually won the Tours in 1999-2005 as opposed to having won them and then being stripped of them as relevant evidence came to light?

The former approach presents a major logical issue, as it if applied in general, no-one can ever win anything, as it's impossible to prove that a given competitor wasn't cheating at the time. Thus, victories can never be awarded, as otherwise, there will always be the need to strip a previously awarded victory, which according to my interpretation of your view of Lance's position, shouldn't happen.

This is a logical argument, not a legal one. I'm happy to accept that under the law, something entirely illogical can happen!
Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 02-10-13, 20:54
peterst6906 peterst6906 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
it is academic if this is discovered 10 secs after crossing the finish line or 10 years later
Officially, the sporting body also has a responsibility to investigate and take action within a reasonable amount of time. Hence SOL.

While we recently saw that shelved for the LA case, my personal view is that if someone cheated there should be no SOL. They should feel uneasy and under threat of eventual exposure forever. If found out, they should be stripped of the titles they obtained while cheating against the rules that existed at the time.

If that was the case, then grand tour and other titles going back a long ways would be at threat, so I'm sure there are many people who would take the view and that SOL is important, both in keeping costs down for an administration and in providing some assurance to athletes.
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 02-10-13, 20:57
Wallace and Gromit Wallace and Gromit is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
it seems to me ( a simpleton ) that an athlete when winning an event had agreed to abide by the rules of said event

if they had broken the rules they are no longer the winner

it is academic if this is discovered 10 secs after crossing the finish line or 10 years later
I'm not sure this helps. The issue is whether Lance won the races and was then stripped of them, or whether he never won them at all. There's no argument here that he isn't the winner of them now.
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 02-10-13, 21:03
peterst6906 peterst6906 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace and Gromit View Post
...no-one can ever win anything, as it's impossible to prove that a given competitor wasn't cheating at the time. Thus, victories can never be awarded, as otherwise, there will always be the need to strip a previously awarded victory, which according to my interpretation of your view of Lance's position, shouldn't happen.
The onus in the system is not to prove an absence of cheating (which is impossible), but to prove the presence of cheating.

The athletes are assumed innocent of any wrongdoing unless evidence comes to light that they cheated.

In this regard, since everyone is innocent until proven otherwise, it's very easy to award victory.

The question as to what to do when someone is later found to have cheated is still not fully and consistently applied.
Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 02-10-13, 21:08
Fortyninefourteen's Avatar
Fortyninefourteen Fortyninefourteen is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
it seems to me ( a simpleton ) that an athlete when winning an event had agreed to abide by the rules of said event

if they had broken the rules they are no longer the winner

it is academic if this is discovered 10 secs after crossing the finish line or 10 years later
Could not agree more. The elapsed time required to discover the cheating is not relevant.
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 02-10-13, 21:32
Wallace and Gromit Wallace and Gromit is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
lance did not win..............pictures seen in press were lance masqueruading

as a clean athlete
So who has won anything then? And how do we know this to be the case?
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 02-10-13, 21:47
Wallace and Gromit Wallace and Gromit is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebandit View Post
back to my previous post
As far as I can work out, you're saying that the person who crosses the line first wins, until they're shown to be cheating, at which point we re-write history and say they never won in the first place. Or have I missed a trick?
Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 02-10-13, 21:55
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,203
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace and Gromit View Post
Chewy - Are you saying that Lance never actually won the Tours in 1999-2005 as opposed to having won them and then being stripped of them as relevant evidence came to light?

The former approach presents a major logical issue, as it if applied in general, no-one can ever win anything, as it's impossible to prove that a given competitor wasn't cheating at the time. Thus, victories can never be awarded, as otherwise, there will always be the need to strip a previously awarded victory, which according to my interpretation of your view of Lance's position, shouldn't happen.

This is a logical argument, not a legal one. I'm happy to accept that under the law, something entirely illogical can happen!
This is exactly the scenario that the ASO has voiced concern about - that all results will have to be held as indefinite for, for example, up to the 8 years that retroactive testing can be applied.

Lance, as it turned out, never won. Any victory celebrations were premature.

If you want to draw a legal parallel, how about this:

You rob a bank and claim you are rich.

For as long as you can evade the law, you are.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 02-10-13, 22:22
ChewbaccaD's Avatar
ChewbaccaD ChewbaccaD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallace and Gromit View Post
Chewy - Are you saying that Lance never actually won the Tours in 1999-2005 as opposed to having won them and then being stripped of them as relevant evidence came to light?

The former approach presents a major logical issue, as it if applied in general, no-one can ever win anything, as it's impossible to prove that a given competitor wasn't cheating at the time. Thus, victories can never be awarded, as otherwise, there will always be the need to strip a previously awarded victory, which according to my interpretation of your view of Lance's position, shouldn't happen.

This is a logical argument, not a legal one. I'm happy to accept that under the law, something entirely illogical can happen!
Yes, that is what I am saying. There is a concept in law called "relation back" which means a subsequent event that happens will relate back to the date of the original event. It is a legal argument that disallows, in this instance, a person from profiting over a period of time in which they should not have profited at all. If a person steals your money, the law isn't going to treat taking that money away from them as though they had legitimate title. It is going to treat them like they stole it and were never entitled to it from the date they took it. It is actually more logical.
__________________
ChewbaccaDefense Esq.
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 18:43.


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.