Antonio Rigozzi (doping law professor) says laws were flouted in LA/USASA case

Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
I am sure WADA was waiting with baited breadth for the experts to come out of the wood works to chase fame and/or money.

Common sense will prevail.
 
Jun 10, 2009
606
0
0
Basecase said:
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/lance-armstrong-ban-flouted-antidoping-law-experts/1025075/

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/armstrong-ruling-questioned-by-doping-experts

So according to this expert, the laws were flouted and not respected in this case.

Isn't it terrible when laws arn't respected as they should be :rolleyes:
What a dope.

What does he think the acronym "WADA" stands for? I thought it was "World Anti Doping Agency", but he thinks it seems to be "World standing up for supporting precedence in Anti-Doping rulings Agency". Although the WADA statutes mention respecting the rights of athletes, it's a serious bit of extrapolation to suggest WADA should be defending an obviously guilty athlete purely for procedural reasons, in contravention of every principle behind the existence of the organization.

Touting for business probably: "even when everyone knows you're guilty, I'm happy to take your money to explore possibilities of getting you off on a technicality"
 
I guess we have to do our own research on Rigozzi.

He was one of Contador's men, correct?

So a guy who has a losing record at CAS, saying the ruling is incorrect. Maybe he just doesn't know the law.
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
dsut4392 said:
What a dope.

What does he think the acronym "WADA" stands for? I thought it was "World Anti Doping Agency", but he thinks it seems to be "World standing up for supporting precedence in Anti-Doping rulings Agency". Although the WADA statutes mention respecting the rights of athletes, it's a serious bit of extrapolation to suggest WADA should be defending an obviously guilty athlete purely for procedural reasons, in contravention of every principle behind the existence of the organization.

Touting for business probably: "even when everyone knows you're guilty, I'm happy to take your money to explore possibilities of getting you off on a technicality"
Touting for business, neigh, sure he's a college prof by looks of things, so job for life?
 
He's also advising Frank Schleck so there's your Radioshack connection. Wonder if Bruyneel has approached him?

Authored some papers on the interactions of CAS with Swiss law which I have no interest in reading. I guess he gets paid by dopers to try and find legal loopholes which will see them exonerated.
 
blah blah blah

seems like he can spurt on all he wants and it will make no difference...
...........it's done!

lance's legal team were overuled

someone tell me when lance is proven innocent and i will have another look
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
Italian lawyers know how to twist every word and distort every piece of evidence going in their quest to wring out every possibility from a case.
Which explains, partly at least, why the Italian legal system is in such a shambles and Berlusconi will never go to Prison.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
dsut4392 said:
What a dope.

What does he think the acronym "WADA" stands for? I thought it was "World Anti Doping Agency", but he thinks it seems to be "World standing up for supporting precedence in Anti-Doping rulings Agency". Although the WADA statutes mention respecting the rights of athletes, it's a serious bit of extrapolation to suggest WADA should be defending an obviously guilty athlete purely for procedural reasons, in contravention of every principle behind the existence of the organization.
"
You missed 1 very important principle. Fairness and even application of the rules. LA has definitely been treated specially.
 
Jun 16, 2009
60
0
0
He's b*tching about two things, SOL and dissimilar punishments. USADA has made it clear all along that they would have only gone for titles within the SOL had LA cooperated and helped to bring down be kingpins. Turns out he was one of them. Oops!
 
zebedee said:
Italian lawyers know how to twist every word and distort every piece of evidence going in their quest to wring out every possibility from a case.
Which explains, partly at least, why the Italian legal system is in such a shambles and Berlusconi will never go to Prison.
Are you sure he is italian? not every name that ends with a "i" is italian, you know.
 
Jul 10, 2012
200
0
0
It isn't unreasonable to go with Judge Sparks ruling when he turned down Lance's case against USADA. To put it in layman's terms I can understand, it is thus:

Lance should have known what he was getting into when he signed up.

In other words, much like the eager young musician who signs their first music business contract and then much later finds out they have signed away all of their royalties and publishing, Lance should have known that when he became a cyclist he put his career in the hands of WADA and its associated agencies. Due process doesn't count because essentially, Lance and WADA entered into an agreement which allows WADA to do whatever it deems necessary to fight doping in the sport of cycling. If Lance doesn't like it now, he should have thought of it way back when he first got into the game. Too late now. Sorry, pal.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Tolling SOL is a common legal practice that has established precedence in sport as well a criminal court.

Of course these "Experts" know this so it is understandable to question why they would ignore this and pretend Wonderboy was not treated fairly :rolleyes:
 
Jul 10, 2012
200
0
0
Race Radio said:
Tolling SOL is a common legal practice
I asked before in another thread, but I don't think I got an answer. I believe I have read on this website that the 8 year length of statute of limitations is in the WADA Code. Do I have that correct?

If WADA is in charge of the length, and they would like a longer one (say, 14 years), then who would need to approve such a change? WADA's board of directors? Would the UCI need to agree to it?

What I would really love to see is a list of the individual or individuals who are in charge of determining the length of the statute of limitations. So we could ask them, hey individuals, why not go ahead and change it to 14 years? Or 50 years?

As far as changing rules in the middle of the game is concerned, let's just say that changing the statute to 14 years right now would be, say, no different than backdating a TUE.
 
Master50 said:
You missed 1 very important principle. Fairness and even application of the rules. LA has definitely been treated specially.
You are a funny guy.
-The history of WADA enforcements is littered with athlete reps dreaming up every excuse in the book to pretend they didn't dope.
-Even application of the law doesn't really apply for a hundred reasons, chief among them is anti-doping in the U.S. is an arbitration process. A well-tested one too.
-Can we talk about fairness for a minute? Was it fair that the guy ran an unconditional doping program? Was it fair what he did to clean riders? Is it fair he hides his abhorrent, tyrannical behaviour behind a cancer shield?

I know you are going to keep on believing so let's agree to disagree.

This guy is advertising his services for more dopers that get caught. In the U.S. he'd probably do great monetarily. Pretty much like a Fabiani who *****s out to to anyone to get their agenda accomplished at any cost.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
babastooey said:
I asked before in another thread, but I don't think I got an answer. I believe I have read on this website that the 8 year length of statute of limitations is in the WADA Code. Do I have that correct?

If WADA is in charge of the length, and they would like a longer one (say, 14 years), then who would need to approve such a change? WADA's board of directors? Would the UCI need to agree to it?

What I would really love to see is a list of the individual or individuals who are in charge of determining the length of the statute of limitations. So we could ask them, hey individuals, why not go ahead and change it to 14 years? Or 50 years?

As far as changing rules in the middle of the game is concerned, let's just say that changing the statute to 14 years right now would be, say, no different than backdating a TUE.
The Hellebuck case is the standard for Tolling SOL in a WADA case
http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Given that Armstrong lied in multiple official investigations, under oath, in interviews, and in contracts for over a decade it would not be hard to reset SOL.

Of course these guys know this so you have to question their motives
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
Master50 said:
You missed 1 very important principle. Fairness and even application of the rules. LA has definitely been treated specially.
Agreed. The UCI ignored his doping for over a decade. This special treatment only made the eventual addressing of the issue more choatic
 
dsut4392 said:
What a dope.

What does he think the acronym "WADA" stands for? I thought it was "World Anti Doping Agency", but he thinks it seems to be "World standing up for supporting precedence in Anti-Doping rulings Agency". Although the WADA statutes mention respecting the rights of athletes, it's a serious bit of extrapolation to suggest WADA should be defending an obviously guilty athlete purely for procedural reasons, in contravention of every principle behind the existence of the organization.

Touting for business probably: "even when everyone knows you're guilty, I'm happy to take your money to explore possibilities of getting you off on a technicality"

He's nothing more than a Wonderboy shill imo. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he were on the Dopestrong payroll. He's obviously a **** hurt fanboy supporter.
 
Jul 7, 2012
509
0
0
zebedee said:
Italian lawyers know how to twist every word and distort every piece of evidence going in their quest to wring out every possibility from a case.
Which explains, partly at least, why the Italian legal system is in such a shambles and Berlusconi will never go to Prison.
Rigozzi is Swiss...

Given this, I have little doubt that doing whatever makes Rigozzi money will always trump doing what is morally right.

Then again, much the same could be said about most lawyers. ;)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY