Can Armstrong appeal to CAS?

[skimazk]

@webvan what change in tune are you implying?

i havn't changed anything as far as i can tell.

People keep stateing that LA can't appeal to CAS because he waved the USADA arbitration. But CAS arbitration and USADA arbitration are two different things. Testifying at USADA would only serve to further incriminate himself. And it's not really arbitration but more a hearing where the suspected rider can voice his views on the decision allready communicated by USADA.

With a "definite" decision now from USADA/UCI this is the moment where CAS comes in, as there might now be a formal conflict between the athlete and the governing body. The UCI states LA can appeal, WADA states parties can appeal.

Thats the whole point i've been trying to make sofar...

Personally i can't really care about takeing his titles / prizemoney / personal deals away. He deserves all the flack he's getting. On the other hand it would be nice to see governing bodies like CAS / IOC / UCI / WADA stick to their rules and apply the law equally amongst athletes.

The UCI left some big holes in their decision to uphold the USADA decision virtually handing grounds for appeal to LA in this case.

LA stands to benefit from a CAS appeal as it keeps the sharks at bay for the duration of the appeal, and should CAS side with LA on the SOL issue he gets to keep most of his titles (less to pay back to SCA / ASO)

WADA on the other hand has grounds to appeal if only to clarify the SOL and influence of national law on the WADA code. As the USADA defence of lenghtening the SOL is based on US law and would not be applicable in most of the world. This would imply that athletes get sanctioned and treated differently country by country, which is something the WADA code was meant to prevent. Bringing the case to CAS would create a legal precedent from which WADA can build in the future.

 

[skimazk]

WADA considers change of 8 year limitation statute

WADA president John Fahey thought changes must be made to adapt the World Anti-Doping Code to new situations.

“We constantly adapt and have our code to be effective with changing circumstances. You need to change the rules,” said Fahey Wednesday when he attended WADA’s Asian Anti-Doping Education Symposium here.

“One of the suggestions is the current statute of limitations to be extended from eight years to 14 years,” he said. “Some case showed that it takes a long time to get the evidence to catch up with cheats.”

“You don’t want a technical code to say ‘oh it’s too late. Eight years has gone.’ So more time is needed to catch more cheats,” he added.

WADA initiated a consultation process last November designed to update and amend the Code and after several discussion by WADA’s executive committee, a Code drafting team will work out a final draft for approval at the World Conference on Doping in Sport in Johannesburg in November, 2013.

 

[mountainrman]

Of course he can appeal: until UCI ratified the decision there was no decision to appeal.
That clock has only just started.

And there is every reason for Armstrong to do so - and an ethical obligation on WADA front to enforce their rules. Since USADA have violated WADA rules by stripping pre 2005

You read UCI actual statement, they state that they do not believe that USADA can bypass the WADA statute of limitations, which they believe is still in force so they will go along with it "for now" - arguing in essence that it is for Armstrong or WADA to appeal that, not for them, but they say USADA got it wrong in trying to use the "helleybuck" precedent as regards invoking US jurisdictional interpretation of SOL.

Armstrongs team can challenge that SOL without admitting guilt or innocence, and simply on the technical issue that it clearly does defy the WADA code on SOL and if he manages to keep all his titles pre 2005 it could save him legal grief on "who won" as regards the SCA case for example.

There is a precedent - Bjarne Riis "victory" was reinstated on the very same basis in 2008 - that his "admission of doping" was outside the SOL. It forced the Tour organisers to put his name back in the record books - and I think Lance can do the same.

Whether he or WADA does so , of course remains to be seen.

And by the way - that is what I dislike about this, by focussing too heavily on Armstrong/Bruyneel it takes focus completely away from the fact that such as Riis are still in the sport as ex doper turned manager of doping teams, where Bruyneel is banned for life. There is no equitable justice in kangaroo courts. Why should Hincapie get off scott free? even allowed to ride TdF? He Doped before and after armstrong left the tour! Give him a break for owning up for sure, but as it is ,it has cost him nothing at all - he should have faced the ignomy of being banned from riding his last TdF because of doping. Its only one race, but it would have communicated a message loudly.

Which - incidentally : UCI comment on - they say USADA SHOULD have had neutral assessment of prosecution evidence. They did not like USADA process / Tygarts Kangaroo court either where prosecutor also tries to play judge.

 

[Dutchsmurf]

Of course he can appeal: until UCI ratified the decision there was no decision to appeal.
That clock has only just started.

You can't appeal the decision made by the UCI not to appeal, that just doesn't make sense. The UCI had to make the decision if they wanted to appeal or not. That doesn't mean there wasn't a verdict made before that. The UCI is just one of the parties that can appeal the decision, like they did with Contador. WADA is another of those parties.

I'm not completely up to date with the CAS rules. But doesn't CAS review the evidence used in the original case with no new evidence allowed? Meaning that since Armstrong didn't provide his side of the case, anything he might have to say is irrelevant?

 

[skimazk]

I believe thats correct dutchsmurf, but this wouldn't be new evidence. It would be a procedural / jurisdictional error by USADA, not sticking to the 8 years limitation stipulated in the WADA-code. A "vormfout" as we say in dutch. Should CAS agree they could cancel parts of the decision or the entire decision

 

[veganrob]

While waving arbitration is not necessarily an admission of guilt, it would at least mean that one is accepting the decision of the panel as final. Does it not?Just guessing here

 

[Master50]

He can appeal the decision to strip him of all his wins or he has grounds to appeal the length of the penalty. He has grounds on the statute of limitations. I might agree he cannot appeal the imposition of a penalty only the time that anti doping rules apply.

 

[RedheadDane]

This is rather off-topic! But it's just really confusing that CAS on these forums can mean both Court of Arbitration for Sport and Chris Anker Sørensen!
At first when you guys referring to Chris Anker as "CAS" I didn't understand why you were talking about the Court of Arbitration for Sport, now... I've actually caught myself thinking that "What the hell could he [Chris Anker] do?"

Anyway... in case Armstrong appeals, I suppose we'll get the result... 'round 2020!

 

[TheEnoculator]

Armstrong removed the reference of 7-time TdF winner from his twitter profile, while before he introduced himself as winning the Tour 7 times when he was in Montreal. This means Armstrong has accepted UCI's sanction. Is that a behaviour of a guy who's going to appeal? Get real.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Armstrong removed the reference of 7-time TdF winner from his twitter profile, while before he introduced himself as winning the Tour 7 times when he was in Montreal. This means Armstrong has accepted UCI's sanction. Is that a behaviour of a guy who's going to appeal? Get real.

Whether he will appeal is a different question, which only has relevance if he has the right to appeal, which is the question here.

So far I've not seen a definitive answer on that question.

 

[reginagold]

WADA and pretty much all regulatory codes are premised on the idea you can't appeal a decision you didn't participate in. Otherwise there's no reason for the first round of the process. You put your arguments into the hopper when it is open to you, not just when you didn't like the prior result. Yes, even claims about jurisdiction, sol ("Sh*t out of luck?"). But it's entertaining to see folks being mislead by UCI's dreamers. And with a nod to Phil, I'll retire from announcing if I'm wrong.