Do you think the uci will appeal to cas ?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

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 .
Jul 19, 2010
741
1
0
I'll have to say no. McQuaid's little antic about fighting USADA over jurisdiction has made UCI look extremely guilty. McQuaid has shut up since then and if he wants to keep his job a little longer (though not much longer), he'll want to comply with USADA like a good little puppy. Now I don't doubt for a second that Armstrong will put pressure on UCI to appeal, but this is where UCI will want to part company. If they appeal, they go down with Armstrong for sure, 100%. If not, at least UCI will salvage some face and bet on that some evidence might not come out.

I doubt Armstrong will open up and admit to everything to try to get back at UCI if they don't appeal. Armstrong has a lot to lose if he admits to doping: sponsorships, followers, getting sued left and right. So he won't talk. It's better for UCI to throw Armstrong under the bus.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ManInFull said:
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?
The only reason the hug has not withdrawn from the hearing is because it is a part of the coordinated plan to keep USADA's hands tied up with regard to releasing the evidence. They simply legally can not release as long as there is a pending case.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Gee, I am surprised by the onesidedness of the response.. I now figured this is because the Site is populated by the uci skeptics and 'haters'...would be nice if someone runs a similar poll on an armstrong-friendly forum like slow twitch..

I wonder if they validated this poll? Unfortunately, I do not belong there...
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
ManInFull said:
Can Bruyneel request that his arbitration be cancelled. . . ?
Yes. At any time during the proceedings he can decide to waive the hearing. The matter would then proceed by way of default, just as it has with Armstrong, and USADA would then have to submit its own "reasoned decision" pursuant to WADA Code Section 8.3 to UCI, IOC, and WADA.

ManInFull said:
If he is truly collaborating with Lance, wouldn't Lance want him to cancel it?
If they are collaborating (and most here think they are) and things get to the point in Bruyneel's arbitration where testimony that would be damaging to Amrstrong is going to come out (and I'm assuming neither Bruyneel or Armstrong is concerned with anything they already know about, like the Andreus, or Tyler, or Landis, etc-- it's got to be something new that hints at stuff that has not been made widely public and that, if aired openly, would damage his foundation and hurt him in a real way with sponsors) then yeah, I think Armstrong wouldn't want that sort of stuff to see the light of day and would do whatever he can to get Bruyneel to back out of arbitration.

Most here seem to believe, I think it safe to say, that USADA will base at least some of the charges on some new evidence that has never been made public previously (at least not widely), something that Armstrong would definitely not want to have to contest on the merits, and likewise that he wouldn't want Bruyneel to contest either. So yes, at some point, Armstrong is likely to urge him to stop and back out of the arbitration.

One big problem for Lance with the other "defendants" other than Bruyneels is that someone like Pepe Marti (who is also now going forward with arbitration) may be more independent and not subject to what Lance wants any longer. Even if Bruyneel backs out and stops his own arbitration, some or all of this same stuff may still see a full airing in Marti's arbitration.

ManInFull said:
Or will Lance want Bruyneel to go through with it so that a lot or all of the evidence can be exposed?
Again, I think Armstrong will abide by whatever Bruyneel wants to do, at least in the early stage, and that would likely include obtaining the names of witnesses, any affidavits from witnesses that USADA would offer in lieu of live testimony and copies of any documentary evidence. I think Armstrong would try to get Bruyneel to draw the line however when it comes to USADA actually calling live witnesses. He doesn't want that to happen at all.
 
Jul 18, 2010
171
0
0
NO

For the same reason that Armstrong declined to participate. They don't want to have to answer evidence in a formal hearing. They hope it all goes away fast. A hearing is the last thing they need.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Yes. At any time during the proceedings he can decide to waive the hearing. The matter would then proceed by way of default, just as it has with Armstrong, and USADA would then have to submit its own "reasoned decision" pursuant to WADA Code Section 8.3 to UCI, IOC, and WADA.



If they are collaborating (and most here think they are) and things get to the point in Bruyneel's arbitration where testimony that would be damaging to Amrstrong is going to come out (and I'm assuming neither Bruyneel or Armstrong is concerned with anything they already know about, like the Andreus, or Tyler, or Landis, etc-- it's got to be something new that hints at stuff that has not been made widely public and that, if aired openly, would damage his foundation and hurt him in a real way with sponsors) then yeah, I think Armstrong wouldn't want that sort of stuff to see the light of day and would do whatever he can to get Bruyneel to back out of arbitration.

Most here seem to believe, I think it safe to say, that USADA will base at least some of the charges on some new evidence that has never been made public previously (at least not widely), something that Armstrong would definitely not want to have to contest on the merits, and likewise that he wouldn't want Bruyneel to contest either. So yes, at some point, Armstrong is likely to urge him to stop and back out of the arbitration.

One big problem for Lance with the other "defendants" other than Bruyneels is that someone like del Moral (who is also now going forward with arbitration) may be more independent and not subject to what Lance wants any longer. Even if Bruyneel backs out and stops his own arbitration, some or all of this same stuff may still see a full airing in del Moral's arbitration.



Again, I think Armstrong will abide by whatever Bruyneel wants to do, at least in the early stage, and that would likely include obtaining the names of witnesses, any affidavits from witnesses that USADA would offer in lieu of live testimony and copies of any documentary evidence. I think Armstrong would try to get Bruyneel to draw the line however when it comes to USADA actually calling live witnesses. He doesn't want that to happen at all.
I think it is Pepe Marti who got the default unwound, not del Moral. It's a mistake I made earlier.
 
The smart thing to do would be to say they have no choice but to implement the USADA's sanctions and let Armstrong burn. This pretty much means the UCI will do the opposite, fight it or refuse to change race results, and end up looking more corrupt than usual.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
QuickStepper said:
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 think that stepping in and intervening on behalf of Armstrong and not lifting a finger in regards to several past USADA enforcement actions (Tyler, Floyd, etc), it would be interpreted as thuggish and corrupt.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
python said:
The only reason the hug has not withdrawn from the hearing is because it is a part of the coordinated plan to keep USADA's hands tied up with regard to releasing the evidence. They simply legally can not release as long as there is a pending case.
Until last week I would have agreed with the bolded statement completely, I think I am now of a different view based on further reading of the WADA Code and the USADA Protocols. I think instead that USADA will release the evidence as it pertains to the case against Armstrong only as soon as possible, regardless of the status of arbitration matters concerning any of the others.

The governing sections of the rules applicable are the WADA Code, and specifically Article 14 re: Confidentiality, and the USADA Protocols, specifically Section 16 re: Public Disclosures. Without boring anyone with the details, I think if the USADA treats the decision against Armstrong as dispositive and final (as I think it must) then it doesn't matter whether the cases against Bruyneel and the others remain pending-- USADA can release the evidence as it pertains to Armstrong. And I think this is consistent with several of the public statements that Tygart made over the weekend in various interviews (e.g., the USA Today interview).

USADA appears to be taking the view that Armstrong's case is finished and final (at least at the USADA level), and they are correct. Once USADA transmits its "reasoned decision" to UCI, WADA and others entitled to get it, that starts the clock running on the time for appeal by UCI, WADA, etc.

As such, under Section 16 of the Protocols, once the case is concluded, USADA is free to comment publicly as to any details of the case it feels are appropriate to discuss where, as here, the athlete has made public statements that USADA feels it must respond to. I think it's clear this is how Tygart justifies the round of interviews he did this past weekend. .

Further, under the WADA Code Section 8.3, USADA is required to prepare and timely transmit its "reasoned decision" setting forth the detailed reasons why it is sanctioning Armstrong. Most assume that this "reasoned decision" will have to go into great detail describing the evidence, and I agree with that. This is what "reasoned decisions" do.

I think it's safe to assume that if Mr. Tygart thinks it is advantageous to get the evidence out sooner rather than later, as he says, that he can figure out a way to craft the "reasoned decision" so that it falls within the above two guidelines and yet doesn't violate USADA's obligation to keep matters confidential concerning the Bruyneel, et.al. side of the case.

Drafting such a "reasoned decision" really wouldn't be difficult. It could be done by discussing only the evidence that pertains to Armstrong, without mentioning any of the other parties by name. While we might be able to figure out who is who among the unnamed, USADA would still technically be within the letter of law regarding confidentiality as to Bruyneel, et.al.

On balance, I think USADA is going to get the evidence as it relates only to Armstrong (and not as to Bruyneel or the others) released as soon as it can no matter what happens with Bruyneel and the others.
 
Jul 18, 2011
36
0
0
The evidence - eye witness testimony and drug tests - will be presented to the public before any possible UCI led appeal. Even if Armstrong pressures the UCI to appeal the case, the UCI can't because they know they are complicit. I don't know if the UCI drug suppression evidence sees the light of day, and if it does, how they will refute it. Who polices the UCI, CAS?

The UCI wants to bury this thing ASAP and will attempt to run away, as evidenced by their no comment reaction to Lance's meta-admission of guilt.

They don't want to prolong this thing and as cycling nears its end of season, they know that the media attention will die down. Besides, I'm sure that Fatty McQ is getting pressure from legit organizations to make a public statement regarding the validity of USADA's final decision to ban and delete the cheat.

But hey, I could be wrong about everything.:eek:
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
MarkvW said:
I think it is Pepe Marti who got the default unwound, not del Moral. It's a mistake I made earlier.
Yes, you are right, it is Marti, not del Moral who was allowed to arbitrate after defaulting. Thanks for that. I've corrected the error.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
BotanyBay said:
I think that stepping in and intervening on behalf of Armstrong and not lifting a finger in regards to several past USADA enforcement actions (Tyler, Floyd, etc), it would be interpreted as thuggish and corrupt.
I think if you look at what UCI has stated previously, and leave the assumptions at the door (if that is possible, and I know for many here it's difficult) as to UCI's motivation to want to assert jurisdicttion, it won't be perceived by most of the public, nor by the IOC as "thuggish" or "corrupt."

Of course, if CAS were to agree with UCI and hold that UCI has jurisdiction and not USADA, and then UCI didn't proceed forward to conduct a reasonable, fair and adequate investigation, that would create a lot of problems for UCI.

I'm not trying to convince you, btw, that UCI is or isnt' corrupt. I think most of the IOC delegates from member nations already have shaped their own views about UCI over the years, and this isn't going to change anything. Those who don't have a problem with UCI leadership won't have any issue; others like **** Pound who is still a Canadian delegate to the IOC, well, UCI can't do anything right anyway.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
BotanyBay said:
I think that stepping in and intervening on behalf of Armstrong and not lifting a finger in regards to several past USADA enforcement actions (Tyler, Floyd, etc), it would be interpreted as thuggish and corrupt.
I don't think Tyler and Floyd are the best examples because their sanctions were based on analytical findings. Better would be the Papp smears (LeoGrande or Zajicek) whose sanctions were happily ratified by USA Cycling and the UCI, or Basso's "I was only attempting to dope" case.

But otherwise, I totally agree.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
QuickStepper said:
I think if you look at what UCI has stated previously, and leave the assumptions at the door (if that is possible, and I know for many here it's difficult) as to UCI's motivation to want to assert jurisdicttion, it won't be perceived by most of the public, nor by the IOC as "thuggish" or "corrupt."

Of course, if CAS were to agree with UCI and hold that UCI has jurisdiction and not USADA, and then UCI didn't proceed forward to conduct a reasonable, fair and adequate investigation, that would create a lot of problems for UCI.

I'm not trying to convince you, btw, that UCI is or isnt' corrupt. I think most of the IOC delegates from member nations already have shaped their own views about UCI over the years, and this isn't going to change anything. Those who don't have a problem with UCI leadership won't have any issue; others like **** Pound who is still a Canadian delegate to the IOC, well, UCI can't do anything right anyway.
Look at McQuaid's letters and the WADA code. The UCI jurisdiction arguments are very weak.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
MaxVO2 said:
The evidence - eye witness testimony and drug tests - will be presented to the public before any possible UCI led appeal. Even if Armstrong pressures the UCI to appeal the case, the UCI can't because they know they are complicit. I don't know if the UCI drug suppression evidence sees the light of day, and if it does, how they will refute it. Who polices the UCI, CAS?

The UCI wants to bury this thing ASAP and will attempt to run away, as evidenced by their no comment reaction to Lance's meta-admission of guilt.

They don't want to prolong this thing and as cycling nears its end of season, they know that the media attention will die down. Besides, I'm sure that Fatty McQ is getting pressure from legit organizations to make a public statement regarding the validity of USADA's final decision to ban and delete the cheat.

But hey, I could be wrong about everything.:eek:
The UCI is more than just Pat the puppet and Hein the puppeteer.

It has a structure and governance that would come into play to question the current UCI antics from any of the 170 national federations and put them to a discussion and a vote.

Even Pat the Prez cannot make a UCI call amongst sports and public bodies (here read US Federal Courts) without a counter signature from a UCI executive committee member.

Was there a counter signature on Pat's anti USADA ramblings that were filed with Judge Sparks?
 
Jul 8, 2009
187
0
0
Tell you what, I think this is a great thread because there are so many different ways this plays out.

I'll go out on a limb and say they appeal. That's the only remote chance they have to short-circuit the process of everything coming out. It's a long shot and might actually make things worse, but they're probably in trouble regardless.

I can't help thinking, though, that there are dynamics I haven't considered and not envisioned in this thread. As others have said, a lotta people are trying to save their $#%es right now.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
MarkvW said:
Look at McQuaid's letters and the WADA code. The UCI jurisdiction arguments are very weak.
I tend to agree with you that the UCI's arguments have some major weak spots. The whole issue of jurisdiction resting on who "discovered" the violations is a total clusterf#4k and I also think is one of UCI's weakest arguments, but the one they appear to have relied on most in McQuaid's letters.

I didn't say I was predicting a win for UCI if they appealed, but it might be worth a shot just to appeal jurisdiction for them, especially if they can convince CAS to prevent any further public litigation of claims that UCI engaged in any corrupt acts. Some of the public has read these allegations that are well-known here in the clinic, but I'd say there are a lot of people who are just unaware of it altogether, who only read the headlines and don't pay attention to details.
 
QuickStepper said:
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.
If the UCI takes it to CAS then they will be challenging the WADA code. Their rules state that USADA had jurisdiction.
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
I voted "No".

They won't be looking for more scrutiny.

Look how well LA's PR blitz has worked. Apparently the majority of North Americans support him, regardless of his blatant d*uche-baggery.

I'd really love for this to fall in the UCI's lap, but they have SO much money and power that they'd be fine with the debate being relegated to internet forums.

They'll dodge the ball, pay the appropriate tithes to the IOC, and things will keep on keeping on...

There is no way their legal council would advise going to CAS to hear a fair ruling. These guys are no dummies, they're hedging their bets so as to have their prostestations fall as nicely as Lance's have.

"It's a witch-hunt" will end up winning, and it breaks my heart.
 
Jul 13, 2012
342
0
0
TheEnoculator said:
I'll have to say no. McQuaid's little antic about fighting USADA over jurisdiction has made UCI look extremely guilty. McQuaid has shut up since then and if he wants to keep his job a little longer (though not much longer), he'll want to comply with USADA like a good little puppy. Now I don't doubt for a second that Armstrong will put pressure on UCI to appeal, but this is where UCI will want to part company. If they appeal, they go down with Armstrong for sure, 100%. If not, at least UCI will salvage some face and bet on that some evidence might not come out.

I doubt Armstrong will open up and admit to everything to try to get back at UCI if they don't appeal. Armstrong has a lot to lose if he admits to doping: sponsorships, followers, getting sued left and right. So he won't talk. It's better for UCI to throw Armstrong under the bus.
I agree with this post.A key moment for me was Howman immediately wading in (or wada-ing in if you'll excuse the pun) to back USADA after hearing McQuaids jurisdiction crap.Howman is a big fish, connected and respected in all the right places,UCI realised at that point they would have to throw Armstrong to the wolves.
 
Jul 23, 2010
270
0
0
luckyboy said:
If the UCI takes it to CAS then they will be challenging the WADA code. Their rules state that USADA had jurisdiction.
Not really, at least not completely. While UCI has taken the position that the UCI's own ADR rules govern those results managment over testing that was done by UCI, UCI also relies on the WADA Code too. I don't think it has ever said the WADA Code is not enforceable; it has a different interpretation of the WADA Code than does WADA or USADA about who has jurisdiction here. I think it's actually more accurate to say that USADA and WADA both disagree about the viability and applicability of the UCI's ADR rules, rather than that UCI is challenging the WADA Code.

WADA and USADA have both taken the position that USADA has original jurisdiction for results management (for reasons that have been discussed many times in other places). UCI says it has results management jurisdiction, also for a variety of reasons, some of those reasons the same factually as those urged by USADA, but UCI has not, to my knowledge challenged the viability of the Code itself; it has challenged it's applicability, but my only quibble with your comment is that challenging someone else's interpretation of the Code, or reading it differently than WADA (the organization) does, isn't the same thing as "challenging the Code" itself. I may be reading too much into your comment, but wanted to note the distinction.

Finally, I just want to state this so people don't think I'm taking a position in favor of UCI here: I'm not at all convinced that UCI's reading or interpretation has merit at all. Most here are convinced that USADA's position is rock-solid and they may be right. UCI's position, particularly the manner in which they've expressed it, seems more than a bit strained and over-wrought, and tenuous at best. (See McQuaid's letter of July 13, for example). His other letter of July 13re: del Moral, Bruyneel, Pepe Marti, et.al, is even stranger and more oddly written than the other letter, IMHO.
 
I vote NO

From the silence and professionalism the UCI has handled itself the last week, I would be tempted to guess that someone has returned from holliday, installed a drinking game on Pats computer and withdrawn his letter writing priveliges.

It could be that Pat and Hein are able to influence events to their liking in the UCI, but they are not allowed to dictate it's suicide to save themselves.

Pat's letters have brought enough attention towards the UCIs involvment in doping. The IOC is probably not happy with the icky cess pool of UCI cycling getting near them.


Oops. The AFLD comment about the UCI and IOC tipping off armstrong to testing. Looks like the the IOC got some of that icky UCI stuff on their clothes:

http://www.nrk.no/sport/sykkel/1.8298380

Gerhard Heiberg calls the allegetions against the IOC horrible.

– Jeg har tidligere vært en del av kommisjonen som tar seg av slike saker. Likevel, jeg har aldri vært borti så sterke beskyldninger, erkjenner Heiberg.

I was earlier a member of the comission dealing with such issues. Still I have never heard about such strong allegations before.

– Vi i IOC ønsker selvfølgelig ikke å være bekjente av beskyldningene, og vi er nødt til å behandle dette, sier Heiberg.

We in the IOC of course do not want to be party to such allegations, and we have to investigate this, says Heiberg.




Heiberg has been very critical of cycling and has threatened that the IOC might remove cycling from the olympics:

2010 doping
http://www.nrk.no/sport/sykkel/1.7317881

2011 contador/doping
http://www.nrk.no/sport/sykkel/1.7509032

2012 Contador/doping
http://www.nrk.no/sport/sykkel/1.7986856

The last time he got an earfull from the Norwegian president of cycling because cycling was according to them finally doing something about the problem. I thought Heiberg was unfair in his critisism at the time. And then I discovered the clinic, and realized that Heiberg might know quite a bit about the issues within cycling.

According to the Norwegian media, he is very important in selecting the next head of the IOC. Since he is not running, a lot of the potential candidates talk to him.
http://www.nettavisen.no/sport/sommer-ol/article3449264.ece

That might be bluster by the Norwegian media, but then again he is head of the marketing commision:
http://www.olympic.org/marketing-commission?tab=Composition

There is someone called **** on this commision who seems to be very popular in the clinic. Perhaps they are conducting a whitch hunt against cycling?:D


Anyway the AFLD comments seem odd. I thought the UCI handled the the anti doping for cycling. How would anyone in the IOC know enough to tip off armstrong unless it related to the olympics?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
QuickStepper said:
Not really, at least not completely. While UCI has taken the position that the UCI's own ADR rules govern those results managment over testing that was done by UCI, UCI also relies on the WADA Code too. I don't think it has ever said the WADA Code is not enforceable; it has a different interpretation of the WADA Code than does WADA or USADA about who has jurisdiction here. I think it's actually more accurate to say that USADA and WADA both disagree about the viability and applicability of the UCI's ADR rules, rather than that UCI is challenging the WADA Code.

WADA and USADA have both taken the position that USADA has original jurisdiction for results management (for reasons that have been discussed many times in other places). UCI says it has results management jurisdiction, also for a variety of reasons, some of those reasons the same factually as those urged by USADA, but UCI has not, to my knowledge challenged the viability of the Code itself; it has challenged it's applicability, but my only quibble with your comment is that challenging someone else's interpretation of the Code, or reading it differently than WADA (the organization) does, isn't the same thing as "challenging the Code" itself. I may be reading too much into your comment, but wanted to note the distinction.

Finally, I just want to state this so people don't think I'm taking a position in favor of UCI here: I'm not at all convinced that UCI's reading or interpretation has merit at all. Most here are convinced that USADA's position is rock-solid and they may be right. UCI's position, particularly the manner in which they've expressed it, seems more than a bit strained and over-wrought, and tenuous at best. (See McQuaid's letter of July 13, for example). His other letter of July 13re: del Moral, Bruyneel, Pepe Marti, et.al, is even stranger and more oddly written than the other letter, IMHO.
In McQuaid's letters to USADA he did make arguments based on the WADA Code.

But if the UCI argues that its procedural rules control over WADA/USADA's procedural rules, then there is a conflict and the WADA/USADA rules prevail over the UCI's rules--per the WADA Code. It's like Robert DeNiro said to Natasha McElhone in 'Ronin:' "If you have doubt, there is no doubt."
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
JMBeaushrimp said:
I voted "No".

They won't be looking for more scrutiny.

Look how well LA's PR blitz has worked. Apparently the majority of North Americans support him, regardless of his blatant d*uche-baggery.

I'd really love for this to fall in the UCI's lap, but they have SO much money and power that they'd be fine with the debate being relegated to internet forums.

They'll dodge the ball, pay the appropriate tithes to the IOC, and things will keep on keeping on...

There is no way their legal council would advise going to CAS to hear a fair ruling. These guys are no dummies, they're hedging their bets so as to have their prostestations fall as nicely as Lance's have.

"It's a witch-hunt" will end up winning, and it breaks my heart.
The UCI are not rolling in money. They are a non profit organization.

Each year they produce a budget to justify the levies to member national federations for their annual dues.

That is why Fatpat justified the "donation" from Armstrong for the Sysmex machine (ho hum) as UCI is not a wealthy organization.

But from my studies of theri financials there was no accounting in the UCi records for the $3m bribe paid by the Japanese Keiran body to get the event into the 2000 Olympics.

Ex gratia retirement or unapproved golden parachute to Hein?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS