Do you think the uci will appeal to cas ?

I have posted elsewhere my thoughts on whether the uci will appeal the usada’s verdic

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
i have posted elsewhere my thoughts on whether the uci will appeal the usada’s verdict to cas.

they boiled down to this - they wont dare because it will expose uci’s own cover up story if the evidence is allowed to flow. This is very important. Firstly, because if the uci chickens out too, the evidence once again will remain unexamined by the official judges (not saying it will remain sealed, but there is a difference). Secondly, because if they do chicken out, it will automatically throw Armstrong under the bus as he himself can not appeal. And lastly, because it’s an uphill fight for the uci to wrestle with fully wada-backed usada and risk an embarrassing defeat.

So, I am asking the simple question in the poll form, Do you think the uci will appeal to cas ? Yes/No.

Go ahead and explain your position if you should.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
If it means delaying the process for as long as possible without information being released and CAS not seeing or hearing anything, then yes they will appeal.

But they are in a corner so expect a fight.

I also think this is bigger than we think with IOC people wanting this to go away asap.

I also expect ASO are hoping that the current UCI get the chop.
 
Apr 20, 2012
6,321
0
0
UCI have seen the evidence and have payed off Pharmstrong, that's why a press officer has responded to the Sparks verdict and not the great Pat.

Just waiting for the Bruyneel/del Moral hearings.
 
Yes, for me this is the $64 question (old American saying). I understand the argument that they wouldn't dare. But against that, what are they going to say to rationalize not appealing? They have already injected themselves pretty deeply into the case, basically acting like LA's partner against USADA. If they decline to appeal, it will not only look like another flip-flop (remember Pat initially said UCI had no dog in the fight), but yes, they will be throwing LA under the bus. LA's has hitched his case to the claim that UCI has jurisdiction. He has basically said, whatever UCI decides, I'm good with (though to be fair, he also said before that he welcomed the USADA investigation). By not appealing, UCI would be saying, no, USADA has jurisdiction here. We're sorry, we were wrong before. Unlike LA, they can't play the kangaroo court card.

So I think there's a decent chance they will appeal. Here are some additional reasons:

1) I think their calculation is that the evidence that UCI tipped off LA about testing, dismissed the TdS positive, and any other acts of corruption, will not be strong enough. I'm quite sure they're right about the Tds positive, Saugy has said he will not testify it was a genuine positive; the other stuff, we shall see. The stories about testers having to wait have been out for several years now, if they were so damaging, why didn't something happen before? Not saying UCI won't come out of this looking dirty, I just don't think the evidence will rise to the level where it really hurts them. Other governing bodies have survived worse.

2) I don't buy the argument that they would be courting trouble with the IOC by opposing USADA. It's perfectly possible for the two agencies to take opposing views in a doping case. Before Contador's case went to CAS, there was speculation here that UCI might support him. I don't recall anyone at that time suggesting that UCI would get kicked out of the Olympics for doing so. In fact, sometimes appeals are rationalized not as disagreement with a decision, but as an effort to clarify it, put it to rest so everyone will see why it was made.

3) Even if UCI doesn't appeal, much of the evidence will come out. The best way for UCI to control how much of it does come out is to make a deal with USADA. Tygart has shown himself very willing to make a deal with LA. What about UCI? Suppose UCI says to USADA in back channels, we have to appeal this after all we have said, you understand that. We will not make things too difficult for you if you won't make things too difficult for us. So UCI could save face, and maybe also save its own skin.
 
Merckx index said:
2) I don't buy the argument that they would be courting trouble with the IOC by opposing USADA. It's perfectly possible for the two agencies to take opposing views in a doping case. Before Contador's case went to CAS, there was speculation here that UCI might support him. I don't recall anyone at that time suggesting that UCI would get kicked out of the Olympics for doing so. In fact, sometimes appeals are rationalized not as disagreement with a decision, but as an effort to clarify it, put it to rest so everyone will see why it was made.
Isn't there are difference?

UCI mounting a case based on USADA not having jurisdiction goes to the heart of the Code.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
That means we will proudly and shout from the rooftops that UCI has validated the prooves : Lance doped, trafficked and corrupted for years ! :D

Edit: That was a response to Ferminal
No, absolutely not, the WADA/IOC threat will be too great.

Although, it could be crazy Hein McQuaid's last hurrah. If their ship really is sinking, they may not care.
 
no way

for the reasons stated in initial post uci can not appeal without being guilty
of cover up/preferentional treatment for team armstrong

so armstrong / uci should have received details of action v armstrong.......no doubt these details will remain undisclosed unlike the original charging letter released by team armstrong

my thought is that bruyneel will follow armstrong's lead and not proceed to arbitration

as usada's original charging document implicated uci would this be buried with no arbitration taking place..............no doubt that would please uci

uci appealling to cas would increase chances of later action by usada

thoughts?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
python said:
i have posted elsewhere my thoughts on whether the uci will appeal the usada’s verdict to cas.

they boiled down to this - they wont dare because it will expose uci’s own cover up story if the evidence is allowed to flow. This is very important. Firstly, because if the uci chickens out too, the evidence once again will remain unexamined by the official judges (not saying it will remain sealed, but there is a difference). Secondly, because if they do chicken out, it will automatically throw Armstrong under the bus as he himself can not appeal. And lastly, because it’s an uphill fight for the uci to wrestle with fully wada-backed usada and risk an embarrassing defeat.

So, I am asking the simple question in the poll form, Do you think the uci will appeal to cas ? Yes/No.

Go ahead and explain your position if you should.
In my best Landis drawl, "I'll say no".

But here's something else to add to your list - will it be the UCIs choice?
By that I mean LA and his mob might be putting the UCI under pressure to appeal - the UCI would be scared that all their history gets uncovered - but LA may be threatening to expose it anyway, if they don't appeal.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
I'm voting that the UCI will not appeal. I am not confident of this opinion, because I am selecting the UCI's best choice. Selecting the UCI's worst choice has historically been the smart play.

The UCI doesn't want anything to change. Letting the Armstrong case die offers the best hope of maintaining the status quo.

I agree with Ferminal and Python that the signs point to new figureheads at the UCI, though.

As to real change? HAH! Anybody think USA Cycling is going to lead a rebellion to support USADA's anti-doping efforts?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
In my best Landis drawl, "I'll say no".

But here's something else to add to your list - will it be the UCIs choice?
By that I mean LA and his mob might be putting the UCI under pressure to appeal - the UCI would be scared that all their history gets uncovered - but LA may be threatening to expose it anyway, if they don't appeal.
yes, this has been mentioned in several threads and there is certainly a possibility that armstrong, having nothing to lose, will engage in the full blackmail mode threatening the uci with a devastating, ground-shattering exposure...we all go down !

firstly, if the nuclear option was to be engaged, it already has been engaged. to my reckoning that was the point when the uci fully intervened in the federal court reversing its earlier position. it obviously misfired.

secondly, the nuclear option is a double-edged sword for armstrong himself, because he can obliterate whatever has remained of his fraudulent kingdom.

regarding a deal between the uci and usada suggested by ME, i did consider it too and actually went to some length exploring it's probability in a post placed on dim's forum (reply #742, http://velorooms.com/the-doping-section/the-official-lance-armstrong-thread/720/). i think it's possible but only on the usada conditions as it runs the show. if worked out, it means no appeal.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
I agree with BotanyBay

hein might be friends with LA, his dearest pals still reside in the IOC.
hein is a genuine asslicker, so he'll do what his IOC comrads tell him to do.
 
Oct 29, 2009
357
0
0
UCI's worst nightmare coming true!! Pats in a lose - lose situation, fun to watch him squirm :D

For once, I'm really hoping they do take it to CAS so we can see all the dirt. No hance they will though, Lance has already made the decision for them, time to drop it and hope it goes away ha ha
 
Dr. Maserati said:
In my best Landis drawl, "I'll say no".

But here's something else to add to your list - will it be the UCIs choice?
By that I mean LA and his mob might be putting the UCI under pressure to appeal - the UCI would be scared that all their history gets uncovered - but LA may be threatening to expose it anyway, if they don't appeal.
In the eyes of the public opinion Armstrong is now the victim. If we compare who has the most to lose if everything is out in the open between Armstrong and the UCI, I'd say Armstrong. So I am not sure if the black mailing would work. Just my 2 cents.
 
Kinda hope they do because then surely Pat + Hein's positions will be untenable, I doubt they will though.

Hopefully when USADA release the evidence it will be too much for them to stay.

Whatever, this is the best opportunity to clear them out - if it doesn't happen after this it never will.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
No.

UCI would love to appeal and will sail close to the wind in letting Everybody know just how outrageous/egregious USADA's actions are.

(motivation: to appear important and relevant and defend preceived attacks on their authority; to appear loyal to Lance; remain consistent with their latest change of mind)

But...in the finish they will crawl away/resile from this position and allow the matter to remain as is.

(motivation: conflicted as they/Pat will be; I think concern over IOC intervention will be strong enough for them to eventually bite their tongues)
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
BotanyBay said:
Appealing this would be suicide with the IOC.
I don't think so. I don't think IOC cares one way or the other: IOC has already announced this past Friday that it will await the situation to see what happens between UCI and USADA over this case before taking any formal action against Armstrong.

An appeal before CAS, based on only the jurisdiction argument, really has no impact on IOC. An appeal which challenges the facts or evidence though could potentially be of concern to IOC if it is based on evidence that involves claims of corruption within UCI and those facts had to be aired in a CAS appeal. The latter could bode ill for cycling's continued Olympic participation.

But until USADA issues the "reasoned decision" it is obligated to issue under WADA Code 8.3, UCI can't even make a decision about whether to appeal or not, and can't really know if such corruption allegations are actually involved or whether they are just the subject of media rumor. Like us, they are just left to guess at the moment what the evidence might be based on some newspaper reports and the recent interviews of Mr Tygart in the media. But only USADA knows for sure at this point what evidence it relied on in reaching its decision. And without the detailed "reasoned decision", how could UCI ever make a decision to appeal or not appeal to CAS? Simple answer is it can't.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
QuickStepper said:
An appeal before CAS, based on only the jurisdiction argument, really has no impact on IOC.
But it WILL have an impact on UCI's credibility in front of the IOC members.

The IOC always wants the world to believe that they keep a clean and tidy house. If the UCI behaves like thugs and has the world believing that their entire top echelon of the sport is entirely corrupt, you could end up seeing more variations of of beach volleyball and far less bike racing.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Armstrong is not going to blow the lid on UCI because if he does he will come out looking worse than he already does and that will destroy those who doubt he doped without the evidence and sure as heck Hein and Pat will destroy Armstrong in return.

It would be great if the above happened.

It also might lead to a call that all anti-doping be carried out in IOC sports by independent bodies

Edit i missed Pythons

python said:
firstly, if the nuclear option was to be engaged, it already has been engaged. to my reckoning that was the point when the uci fully intervened in the federal court reversing its earlier position. it obviously misfired.

secondly, the nuclear option is a double-edged sword for armstrong himself, because he can obliterate whatever has remained of his fraudulent kingdom.
Which i agree with.

There are alot of people in this trying desperately hard to save their a$$es. Whether this is a joint effort or knifes are being sharpened will be made clear in due course no doubt.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
BotanyBay said:
But it WILL have an impact on UCI's credibility in front of the IOC members.

The IOC always wants the world to believe that they keep a clean and tidy house. If the UCI behaves like thugs and has the world believing that their entire top echelon of the sport is entirely corrupt, you could end up seeing more variations of of beach volleyball and far less bike racing.
If UCI raises ONLY the legal argument at CAS that USADA didn't have jurisdiction in the first instance, I don't see how that is the UCI "acting like thugs". I don't think IOC cares about that, and it would be willing to abide by whatever CAS decides on that issue.

On the other hand, if the appeal to CAS involved examining claims that UCI was corrupt, then I agree, such matters could prove embarrassing to UCI to have such issues examined in a formal hearing, de novo (since that is what occurs in a CAS appeal).

On the other hand, if USADA's decision is based in part on such allegations of corruption, UCI may have no choice but to appeal to chellenge such matters in a CAS appeal. In that case, sure there may be some residual fallout with some members of the IOC. I mean, **** Pound is still a member of the IOC for Canada, and I don't think anything is going to change his mind about what he thinks of UCI. And likewise, I don't think UCI cares what someone like **** Pound thinks either.

Again though, it's my take that we need to wait and see what USADA's evidence is and "reasoned decision" really says before we can know whether and on what basis UCI might base an appeal to CAS of USADA's decision.
 
Oct 26, 2009
654
0
0
Fearless Greg Lemond said:
UCI have seen the evidence and have payed off Pharmstrong, that's why a press officer has responded to the Sparks verdict and not the great Pat.

Just waiting for the Bruyneel/del Moral hearings.
Can Bruyneel request that his arbitration be cancelled--thus he accepts the verdict as Armstrong has? If he is truly collaborating with Lance, wouldn't Lance want him to cancel it? Or will Lance want Bruyneel to go through with it so that a lot or all of the evidence can be exposed?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Merckx index said:
Yes, for me this is the $64 question (old American saying). I understand the argument that they wouldn't dare. But against that, what are they going to say to rationalize not appealing? They have already injected themselves pretty deeply into the case, basically acting like LA's partner against USADA. If they decline to appeal, it will not only look like another flip-flop (remember Pat initially said UCI had no dog in the fight), but yes, they will be throwing LA under the bus. LA's has hitched his case to the claim that UCI has jurisdiction. He has basically said, whatever UCI decides, I'm good with (though to be fair, he also said before that he welcomed the USADA investigation). By not appealing, UCI would be saying, no, USADA has jurisdiction here. We're sorry, we were wrong before. Unlike LA, they can't play the kangaroo court card.

So I think there's a decent chance they will appeal. Here are some additional reasons:

1) I think their calculation is that the evidence that UCI tipped off LA about testing, dismissed the TdS positive, and any other acts of corruption, will not be strong enough. I'm quite sure they're right about the Tds positive, Saugy has said he will not testify it was a genuine positive; the other stuff, we shall see. The stories about testers having to wait have been out for several years now, if they were so damaging, why didn't something happen before? Not saying UCI won't come out of this looking dirty, I just don't think the evidence will rise to the level where it really hurts them. Other governing bodies have survived worse.

2) I don't buy the argument that they would be courting trouble with the IOC by opposing USADA. It's perfectly possible for the two agencies to take opposing views in a doping case. Before Contador's case went to CAS, there was speculation here that UCI might support him. I don't recall anyone at that time suggesting that UCI would get kicked out of the Olympics for doing so. In fact, sometimes appeals are rationalized not as disagreement with a decision, but as an effort to clarify it, put it to rest so everyone will see why it was made.

3) Even if UCI doesn't appeal, much of the evidence will come out. The best way for UCI to control how much of it does come out is to make a deal with USADA. Tygart has shown himself very willing to make a deal with LA. What about UCI? Suppose UCI says to USADA in back channels, we have to appeal this after all we have said, you understand that. We will not make things too difficult for you if you won't make things too difficult for us. So UCI could save face, and maybe also save its own skin.
Seems to me that the only jurisdiction argument that isn't laughable is the one based on the fact that the USADA action involves some samples taken by the UCI. An appeal based on this argument isn't frivolous, but it doesn't look like it has any real likelihood of success either.

There are three possible ways the jurisdictional argument could be resolved: (1) the UCI wins outright on the language of the Code, (2) USADA wins outright on the language of the code, or (3) the CAS directs a hearing to decide who has jurisdiction.

The first option is a loser. The Code language is obviously based on adverse analytical cases. It was never intended to address complex non-analytical finding cases. The third option is also a loser, because the UCI has an utterly screaming conflict of interest and USADA is obviously better positioned to handle this.

Another problem with a UCI appeal is that Armstrong was sanctioned for lots of bad stuff. Surely, some of the bad stuff does not rely on UCI samples and the UCI has no basis for claiming jurisdiction there.

Then UCI would have to get around USADA's argument that it's sanctions could be upheld even without the UCI's beloved samples.

The UCI is further hurt on the jurisdiction argument because Armstrong never challenged USADA's jurisdiction.

I'm sure there are more good arguments for USADA that I can't think of.

Now, assume that Lance and the UCI crush all my Google arguments and the UCI triumphantly seizes jurisdiction of the case. What then? The UCI now has a five trillion pound gorilla on its back! What are they going to do with it? Kinda hard to sweep it under the rug when WADA is in possession of every last relevant fact...

Seems to me that the UCI's (not McBruggen's) best play is to go into damage control, like Lance, and let the thing play out.
 
BotanyBay said:
But it WILL have an impact on UCI's credibility in front of the IOC members.

The IOC always wants the world to believe that they keep a clean and tidy house. If the UCI behaves like thugs and has the world believing that their entire top echelon of the sport is entirely corrupt, you could end up seeing more variations of of beach volleyball and far less bike racing.
Pat doesn’t fear IOC/WADA or anyone. He fears the truth. What he doesn’t need is a situation whereby the evidence comes out in a formalised setting. That would kill him off. The UCI will be going nowhere near this case from now. They will strip the titles and pretend that it was USADA behaving in a unusual way and their hand is forced by the rules and regulations but they don’t believe in the verdict.

It really is very sad situation. Its abundantly obvious what the UCI was up to but they don’t’ answer to anyone and have little reason to change their ways.

Cycling is in no better state than it was in 1998 (Festina), 2006 (OP) then 2012 (Sky).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS