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

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Race Radio said:
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
Thanks for that document. I love this sentence in the third paragraph:

"Hellebuyck cannot come before this tribunal and in essence use his perjury as a means to avoid the consequences that should have been imposed in 2004."
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Ferminal said:
I guess we have to do our own research on Rigozzi.
I guess you're right... Which is the first thing I did when I read this article, to get an idea of the perspective from which it was coming. It took about 30 seconds. The question is, why did I actually have to do this? This is the sort of thing which needs to be included in the article, to give context to the statement.

Every time I try to give Cyclingnews the benefit of the doubt, they prove me wrong with their lameness.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
I like how the Swiss care about legal matters with important stuff like cycling competitions but sweep the law under the rug where it concerns money laundering and looting from murder victims..
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Wasn't Armstrong given the exact same opportunity by the USADA as Zabriskie and Hincapie etc? If he'd cooperated, then I assume he would've been treated the same as those who chose to cooperate.

But anyway, fine, let's make it an 8-year SOL - so what? Is that really going to change anything? In some ways I think it'd be even worse for Armstrong, having 3-4 TdF wins with 2-3 annulled because of doping - no one is going to believe that those 3-4 "wins" were clean anyway. It'd be just as humiliating.
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
VeloCity said:
Wasn't Armstrong given the exact same opportunity by the USADA as Zabriskie and Hincapie etc? If he'd cooperated, then I assume he would've been treated the same as those who chose to cooperate.

But anyway, fine, let's make it an 8-year SOL - so what? Is that really going to change anything? In some ways I think it'd be even worse for Armstrong, having 3-4 TdF wins with 2-3 annulled because of doping - no one is going to believe that those 3-4 "wins" were clean anyway. It'd be just as humiliating.
I thing that I and most "normal" people would completely agree with those sentiments.

Have you looked for "normal" people recently?:eek:
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
VeloCity said:
Wasn't Armstrong given the exact same opportunity by the USADA as Zabriskie and Hincapie etc? If he'd cooperated, then I assume he would've been treated the same as those who chose to cooperate.

But anyway, fine, let's make it an 8-year SOL - so what? Is that really going to change anything? In some ways I think it'd be even worse for Armstrong, having 3-4 TdF wins with 2-3 annulled because of doping - no one is going to believe that those 3-4 "wins" were clean anyway. It'd be just as humiliating.
I disagree, I think this is much more humiliating. Now everyone knows he did it, and he's stuck saying he didn't which makes him look like a complete fool.

And that will be his legacy, that he is a fool.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
WinterRider said:
I disagree, I think this is much more humiliating. Now everyone knows he did it, and he's stuck saying he didn't which makes him look like a complete fool.

And that will be his legacy, that he is a fool.
Just meant that it would look ridiculous to go around still claiming that he's a 4-time TdF winner (or whatever) when he's been stripped of several of his wins for doping. It would look pathetic trying to cling to those "wins" when no one would believe that they were any cleaner than the ones that were stripped. Kind of like Riis still being a TdF "winner".
 
Jul 9, 2010
127
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?
Yes, it does. No case older than 8 years old may lead to a case.

If you read the charging letter, all the charges happened less than 8 years ago. They may have started before that, but they lasted until within this 8 year period. I don't think USADA violated the 8 year SOL, but IANAL.
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
131313 said:
I guess you're right... Which is the first thing I did when I read this article, to get an idea of the perspective from which it was coming. It took about 30 seconds. The question is, why did I actually have to do this? This is the sort of thing which needs to be included in the article, to give context to the statement.

Every time I try to give Cyclingnews the benefit of the doubt, they prove me wrong with their lameness.
good work boys
 
Apr 23, 2012
60
0
0
131313 said:
I guess you're right... Which is the first thing I did when I read this article, to get an idea of the perspective from which it was coming. It took about 30 seconds. The question is, why did I actually have to do this? This is the sort of thing which needs to be included in the article, to give context to the statement. Every time I try to give Cyclingnews the benefit of the doubt, they prove me wrong with their lameness.
Thank you! 'twas my thought as well...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
131313 said:
I guess you're right... Which is the first thing I did when I read this article, to get an idea of the perspective from which it was coming. It took about 30 seconds. The question is, why did I actually have to do this? This is the sort of thing which needs to be included in the article, to give context to the statement.

Every time I try to give Cyclingnews the benefit of the doubt, they prove me wrong with their lameness.
CyclingNews are not journalists.

They are paste and copy merchants. Dont be fooled that they are interested in balance!
 
D-Queued said:
Rigozzi must be itching to get on that Lance Armstrong legal advisor gravy train.

A fool and his money...

How long 'til Lance hits pavement?

Dave.
Howard Jacobs appears to have missed that train as well. Not "thuggish" enough?
 
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"
Your comments pretty much summarized every reason colonist left to the US to start a new country, then start a country with better principles and rights to the citizen.

Thank god the courts of law and the US Constitution have to do the opposite of what you state.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Benotti69 said:
CyclingNews are not journalists.

They are paste and copy merchants. Dont be fooled that they are interested in balance!
As I said, I keep giving them the benefit of the doubt....and they keep making me feel stupid... I guess it's because I keep making the mistake of "well, it's better than Velonews". When it comes to CN I'm about to become as cynical as MrsJohnMurphy!
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
131313 said:
I guess you're right... Which is the first thing I did when I read this article, to get an idea of the perspective from which it was coming. It took about 30 seconds. The question is, why did I actually have to do this? This is the sort of thing which needs to be included in the article, to give context to the statement.

Every time I try to give Cyclingnews the benefit of the doubt, they prove me wrong with their lameness.
This is CN all over. You see this time and time again, whenever a pro-Armstrong statement is made it is never contextualised or corrected. For example Contador claiming there is no new evidence against Armstrong.

However, if someone makes a statement against Armstrong/UCI etc then you can be sure that CN will make sure that it is edited and contextualised.

But are you really that surprised?
 
Jun 10, 2009
606
0
0
zigmeister said:
Your comments pretty much summarized every reason colonist left to the US to start a new country, then start a country with better principles and rights to the citizen.

Thank god the courts of law and the US Constitution have to do the opposite of what you state.
Pardon? If you're saying what I think you're saying, you need to take some history lessons both on the origins of US law and on the many reasons why people left (from many parts of the world) to 'colonise' the US.

By the way, do you also forget that it was USADA that prosecuted Armstrong, and a US court (thanks to god?) that upheld the right of USADA to do so?

As for what the US Constitution has to "do", perhaps you're unaware it can't even climb out of it's glass case by itself? It's a document that gives the state and individuals defined obligations, rights and powers, but of its own accord it doesn't "do" anything.
 
May 25, 2011
153
0
0
Zam_Olyas said:
Are you sure he is italian? not every name that ends with a "i" is italian, you know.
If it sounds similar to pizza, it's Italian. That's a fact.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
dsut4392 said:
What a dope.

. . .
I love that new baseball wiz kid's way with words: "Don't be a clown, dude." This guy is acting like a clown!

zebedee said:
Italian lawyers know how to twist every word and distort . . .
Italian lawyers? Haven't a lot of experience in court, eh? That's what they ALL get paid for! :D The first i know of it showing up in history is with the school of Sophists in Greece, 400 BC. ;)
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
Basecase said:
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:
Laws? You mean rules - not laws.
"Double standards" being applied says Swiss lawyer
The decision to strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles and all results dated from 1 August, 1998 does not respect the anti-doping rules regarding the statute of limitations, according to doping law professor Antonio Rigozzi from the University of Neuchatel in Switzerland.

Rigozzi suggests that the rules are being applied based on politics, not precedence and says the UCI has lost credibility by deciding to uphold USADA's decision to strip Armstrong of his Tour titles."

Professor Antonio Rigozzi's opinion is his own.
CAS has already ruled on the use of tolling in the World Anti-Doping Code Article 17 Statute of Limitation. The ruling occurred in a previous Statute of Limitation opinion sought by Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI).
source: CAS 2005/C/841 CONI page 24/25

"78. The question may arise as to how to measure the eight-year period in terms, for example, of dies a quo, interruption, suspension, expiry or extension of such time-bar. In this respect, it must be noted that doping rules enacted by sports authorities are private law rules (and not penal law rules). Consequently, in the Panel’s view, any legal issue concerning the application of such eight-year rule should be dealt with in the context of the principles of private law of the country where the interested sports authority is domiciled. For instance, with respect to the doping rules issued by international federations domiciled in Switzerland, the rules of Swiss civil law concerning the statute of limitations – in French “prescription” – should be applied complementarily to the sports rules themselves. By the same token, Italian sports authorities, when applying their own rules setting forth a statute of limitations – in particular, the eight-year rule implemented by CONI and by Italian federations after Article 17 of the WADC –, should interpret such rules in the context of the Italian civil code and the related civil law jurisprudence on “prescrizione” in order to evaluate whether they are actually time-barred from opening a disciplinary proceeding for facts occurred years before"
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
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.
I am trying to be funny or at least I am trying to find the humour in life.
If you think that USADA can hold the process and method they prosecuted this case as fair and as a normal process then I do think it is not a good thing. It is overwhelming evidence of the truth of it. I don't contest that LA has been proven a cheater. I still maintain this is a very flawed method to that end and the process needs some scrutiny and criticism.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY