Do you think the uci will appeal to cas ?

Page 3 - 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 .
I vote no. If the UCI fights this, it will jeopardize the Olympic status of cycling. I think they will accept USADA's decision and move on. The IOC have made it known where they stand. I can't wait to hear the UCI's decision. When will they make it?
 
I think UCI will try to make a deal with USADA to minimize the damaging evidence of corruption against UCI. If they fail to do so, I think they will appeal to CAS. Hein and Pat will not want to go down easily.

It will also be interesting what Johan will do. What if he cuts a deal with USADA to rat out UCI to get his ban reduced?
 
Jun 18, 2012
299
0
0
Would suggest the answer to this depends entirely what's in the findings of fact. If it remotely incriminates the UCI in any way, my thought is that they'd leave it alone, and ride out a brief storm with silence.
If it doesn't mention the UCI, they'll go after it on the grounds of jurisdiction, as I've seen some idiotic 'lawyer' claim on twitter.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Cavalier said:
Would suggest the answer to this depends entirely what's in the findings of fact. If it remotely incriminates the UCI in any way, my thought is that they'd leave it alone, and ride out a brief storm with silence.
If it doesn't mention the UCI, they'll go after it on the grounds of jurisdiction, as I've seen some idiotic 'lawyer' claim on twitter.
I guess the storm will be very damaging to McQuaid should the evidence be factful and point towards UCI coverin positives and accepting bribes. The USA press will report it, the French, German and UK press will go to town on it.

It might be the perfect storm to clean the sport up.
 
Isn't it the other way round, and we need to ask whether WADA will take the UCI to the CAS? UCI and ASO just want this to go away and seen to be almost ignoring the decision - will there come a point where WADA has to say "you need to change your results now and show this guy as DSQ in the records."?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
VO2 Max said:
Isn't it the other way round, and we need to ask whether WADA will take the UCI to the CAS? UCI and ASO just want this to go away and seen to be almost ignoring the decision - will there come a point where WADA has to say "you need to change your results now and show this guy as DSQ in the records."?
Once the UCI's appeal is either resolved or waived the Lance Armstrong decision is completely "done."

Then, I guess, you get to the next step (the part you're concerned about): Enforcement of the decision. The UCI doesn't seem to have any maneuver room here once the Armstrong decision has been completely resolved. I guess that's why there isn't much discussion. If the UCI doesn't recognize the decision, then there is conflict with WADA and the IOC.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
the asian said:
I think UCI will try to make a deal with USADA to minimize the damaging evidence of corruption against UCI. If they fail to do so, I think they will appeal to CAS. Hein and Pat will not want to go down easily.

It will also be interesting what Johan will do. What if he cuts a deal with USADA to rat out UCI to get his ban reduced?
"Johan the Rat" going back to work in professional cycling? It's a cool mental image, but hard for me to imagine as a viable outcome.
 
Jul 2, 2010
13
0
0
VO2 Max said:
Isn't it the other way round, and we need to ask whether WADA will take the UCI to the CAS? UCI and ASO just want this to go away and seen to be almost ignoring the decision - will there come a point where WADA has to say "you need to change your results now and show this guy as DSQ in the records."?
You just might have a point. Ultimately, who has the final authority to recognize/ignore USADA's ruling? It seems like everyone thinks they have the authority, but they cannot all have the authority.

As I keep mentioning in other posts, I am most interested in what USADA does with the witnesses (the cyclists who were to turn evidence against LA and admit doping). Now that there is no deal to make, does USADA simply let them go, or will they now get prosecuted? If they don't prosecute, does that make them (USADA) look like hypocrites? If they do prosecute, do you think they will ever find a willing witness again?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
MarkvW said:
"Johan the Rat" going back to work in professional cycling? It's a cool mental image, but hard for me to imagine as a viable outcome.
Not necessarily as he was 'in bed' with JV to start a breakaway league without UCI.

If he rats out UCI, he claim he has turned over a new leaf (like Millar) with the possibility of the new league being established.

I dont see it but stranger things have happened.
 
Oct 25, 2010
3,049
2
0
the asian said:
I think UCI will try to make a deal with USADA to minimize the damaging evidence of corruption against UCI. If they fail to do so, I think they will appeal to CAS. Hein and Pat will not want to go down easily.

It will also be interesting what Johan will do. What if he cuts a deal with USADA to rat out UCI to get his ban reduced?
They can't do anything to prevent the evidence from coming out at this point. Pat's just going to pilfer as many post-it notes from the supply closet as he can at this point.

 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
official accusations in corruption by usada

...I thought of putting together the official statements by USADA, UCI and WADA concerning the uci cover-up and corruption. IMO these go to the very heart of the matter and are the reason the uci would prefer not them aired in public.

that the usada would go this far with the devastating accusations without the hard evidence is unthinkable. It’s a longish post but each word is worth the read. Enjoy…


(from 26 USADA letter to UCI)
UCI’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISQUALIFIES IT FROM CONDUCTING
RESULTS MANAGEMENT IN THESE CASES

I will begin the discussion in this section by observing that USADA was established as an independent anti-doping organization not subject to the control of any sports organization precisely for situations such as this where a sports organization with manifest conflicts of interest is attempting to impose its will on the results management process. USADA does not suffer from the numerous conflict of interests that the UCI has in this case.
I understand that Mr. Tygart has previously discussed with you the difficulties of UCI becoming involved in a case such as this where many could legitimately contend that UCI’s involvement in the results management of the case would suffer from a structural concern sometimes referred to colloquially as “the fox guarding the henhouse.” In numerous instances the inability of a sports organization to effectively police doping within its sport has been noted. For instance, in the well known Mitchell Report, an independent investigation into what has been referred to as “the steroid era” in Major League Baseball, Senator George Mitchell recounted baseball’s ineffectiveness in policing steroid use in its sport. Unfortunately, the evidence is even stronger that cycling under the management of the UCI has been enmeshed in its own EPO and blood doping era. By our count, of the twenty-one (21) podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005 only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation. Yet, only a single one of these riders had a positive test with the UCI. The rest of the podium finishers were implicated by law enforcement investigations.4 Unfortunately, cycling’s doping era did not end in 2005 as the cases of more recent Tour de France podium finishers Floyd Landis, Andreas Klöden, Bernhard Kohl, and Alberto Contador and many other top cyclists serve to illustrate.
Like any sports federation under similar circumstances, the UCI has conflicting interests when one of the highest profile athletes in its sport is accused of anti-doping rule violations. Doping by high profile athletes in a sport undermines corporate sponsorship opportunities and jeopardizes public support for the sport. For this very reason, independent anti-doping agencies such as USADA were established. USADA’s fundamental purpose is clean sport and, unlike the UCI, USADA can pursue evidence of doping unhindered by conflicting goals related to the perceived financial interests of the sport. You are well aware of the efforts of USADA on behalf of clean sport from the Floyd Landis case, USADA’s approximately seventy-five other successful prosecutions of cyclists for antidoping rule violations since 2001, the regular attendance of UCI’s staff at the annual USADA Symposium on Anti-Doping Science and through many other activities. For better or worse, a finding that Respondents engaged in doping as alleged by USADA will likely further undermine public confidence in the UCI’s anti-doping efforts. This is in part the case because Mr. Armstrong, his team manager, trainer and team doctors are being accused of engaging in a pervasive and long running doping scheme. It is also because the UCI has repeatedly taken public positions which have placed the UCI irretrievably in the camp of those accused of doping in these cases and those prior positions taken by the UCI now commit the UCI to a negative position on the evidence in these cases. For instance, at the time in 2010 when Mr. Landis publicly raised his allegations of Mr. Armstrong’s doping, in an Associated Press article you stated that Mr. Landis’ allegations in his April 30, 2010 email were “nothing new” and that, “he already made those accusations in the past.”5 It is, therefore, shocking to us that you are now making the inconsistent claim that Mr. Landis’s allegations conferred results management authority upon the UCI under the UCI rules. It is frankly dumbfounding that the UCI now claims to have the authority to conduct results management on the basis of evidence which the UCI previously said that it had investigated, rejected and decided not to proceed upon. By prejudging Mr. Landis’s evidence in the press, whatever results management authority the UCI may have had to consider his evidence has been abdicated. Similarly, when Tyler Hamilton publicly explained his knowledge of Mr. Armstrong’s doping in a 60 Minutes interview nationally telecast in the United States and reported around the world in May, 2011, the UCI’s Honorary President and current UCI Management Committee Member, Hein Verbruggen, stated: That’s impossible, because there is nothing. I repeat again: Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never. And I say this not because I am a friend of his, because that is not true. I say it because I’m sure.” These comments during the pendency of USADA’s investigation by the UCI’s Honorary President, who also currently serves on the UCI Management Committee, are further evidence that even before USADA’s investigation was complete the contention that Mr. Armstrong engaged in doping was pre-judged and rejected by the UCI despite the fact that neither you, nor Mr. Verbruggen, nor any other representative of the UCI, have met with Mr. Hamilton or with any other of USADA’s numerous witnesses concerning these matters. In response to Tyler Hamilton’s public allegations, on May 23, 2011, the UCI issued an official statement expressing that the UCI “categorically rejects the allegations made by Mr. Tyler Hamilton, who claims that Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO during the 2001 Tour of
Switzerland and had the results covered up after one of his representatives approached the Lausanne laboratory responsible for analyzing the test results from this event.” This is yet another example of the UCI taking a public position on the evidence in this case, during the pendency of an ongoing investigation and before a decision to prosecute had ever been made and it provides further support for the conclusion that by its own actions the UCI has disqualified itself from any role in this case. Moreover, as you know, in this particular case it has been alleged by several athletes that information exists suggesting that the UCI may not have aggressively pursued evidence of Mr. Armstrong’s doping that may have been within the UCI’s possession. According to these athletes, Mr. Armstrong told them that he made one or more payments to the UCI following when Mr. Armstrong allegedly had a positive or suspicious test result. In response to Mr. Landis’s claims regarding a cover-up of Mr. Armstrong’s test results and alleged favoritism towards Armstrong, you, former UCI President Hein Verbruggen and the UCI have filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Landis in the Swiss courts. You took this action despite the fact that an investigation of Mr. Landis’s claims was pending. Having filed a lawsuit
against Mr. Landis it is inconceivable that the UCI could expect that it retains the authority to conduct results management and, if necessary, the authority to present the evidence in an antidoping case where one of the witnesses in that case is, at the same time being sued by the UCI. For this reason as well the UCI has a clear conflict of interest in this matter which disqualifies it from playing a results management role.
You complain that USADA did not share its case file with you in advance of initiating the proceedings against Mr. Armstrong and the other respondents; USADA was under no obligation to do so. Moreover, as explained above, it is clear that the UCI has for some time had a clear conflict of interest in relation to USADA’s investigation of Mr. Armstrong. The UCI has plainly prejudged a portion of the evidence in this case and engaged in legal proceedings directly adverse to a witness. For these reasons, it is readily apparent why it would have been inappropriate for USADA to provide the UCI its investigative file before proceeding with results management, why transfer of the file to the UCI is foreclosed at this time and why any results management role for the UCI is barred. Finally, as explained below, there exists yet another strong additional reason why the UCI is not in a position to be involved in any way in the results management of this matter.

continued in next post
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
official accusations in corruption by usada

...I thought of putting together the official statements by USADA, UCI and WADA concerning the uci cover-up and corruption. IMO these go to the very heart of the matter and are the reason the uci would prefer not them aired in public.

that the usada would go this far with the devastating accusations without the hard evidence is unthinkable. It’s a longish post but each word is worth the read. Enjoy…


(from 26 USADA letter to UCI)
UCI’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISQUALIFIES IT FROM CONDUCTING
RESULTS MANAGEMENT IN THESE CASES

I will begin the discussion in this section by observing that USADA was established as an independent anti-doping organization not subject to the control of any sports organization precisely for situations such as this where a sports organization with manifest conflicts of interest is attempting to impose its will on the results management process. USADA does not suffer from the numerous conflict of interests that the UCI has in this case.
I understand that Mr. Tygart has previously discussed with you the difficulties of UCI becoming involved in a case such as this where many could legitimately contend that UCI’s involvement in the results management of the case would suffer from a structural concern sometimes referred to colloquially as “the fox guarding the henhouse.” In numerous instances the inability of a sports organization to effectively police doping within its sport has been noted. For instance, in the well known Mitchell Report, an independent investigation into what has been referred to as “the steroid era” in Major League Baseball, Senator George Mitchell recounted baseball’s ineffectiveness in policing steroid use in its sport. Unfortunately, the evidence is even stronger that cycling under the management of the UCI has been enmeshed in its own EPO and blood doping era. By our count, of the twenty-one (21) podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005 only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation. Yet, only a single one of these riders had a positive test with the UCI. The rest of the podium finishers were implicated by law enforcement investigations.4 Unfortunately, cycling’s doping era did not end in 2005 as the cases of more recent Tour de France podium finishers Floyd Landis, Andreas Klöden, Bernhard Kohl, and Alberto Contador and many other top cyclists serve to illustrate.
Like any sports federation under similar circumstances, the UCI has conflicting interests when one of the highest profile athletes in its sport is accused of anti-doping rule violations. Doping by high profile athletes in a sport undermines corporate sponsorship opportunities and jeopardizes public support for the sport. For this very reason, independent anti-doping agencies such as USADA were established. USADA’s fundamental purpose is clean sport and, unlike the UCI, USADA can pursue evidence of doping unhindered by conflicting goals related to the perceived financial interests of the sport. You are well aware of the efforts of USADA on behalf of clean sport from the Floyd Landis case, USADA’s approximately seventy-five other successful prosecutions of cyclists for antidoping rule violations since 2001, the regular attendance of UCI’s staff at the annual USADA Symposium on Anti-Doping Science and through many other activities. For better or worse, a finding that Respondents engaged in doping as alleged by USADA will likely further undermine public confidence in the UCI’s anti-doping efforts. This is in part the case because Mr. Armstrong, his team manager, trainer and team doctors are being accused of engaging in a pervasive and long running doping scheme. It is also because the UCI has repeatedly taken public positions which have placed the UCI irretrievably in the camp of those accused of doping in these cases and those prior positions taken by the UCI now commit the UCI to a negative position on the evidence in these cases. For instance, at the time in 2010 when Mr. Landis publicly raised his allegations of Mr. Armstrong’s doping, in an Associated Press article you stated that Mr. Landis’ allegations in his April 30, 2010 email were “nothing new” and that, “he already made those accusations in the past.”5 It is, therefore, shocking to us that you are now making the inconsistent claim that Mr. Landis’s allegations conferred results management authority upon the UCI under the UCI rules. It is frankly dumbfounding that the UCI now claims to have the authority to conduct results management on the basis of evidence which the UCI previously said that it had investigated, rejected and decided not to proceed upon. By prejudging Mr. Landis’s evidence in the press, whatever results management authority the UCI may have had to consider his evidence has been abdicated. Similarly, when Tyler Hamilton publicly explained his knowledge of Mr. Armstrong’s doping in a 60 Minutes interview nationally telecast in the United States and reported around the world in May, 2011, the UCI’s Honorary President and current UCI Management Committee Member, Hein Verbruggen, stated: That’s impossible, because there is nothing. I repeat again: Lance Armstrong has never used doping. Never, never, never. And I say this not because I am a friend of his, because that is not true. I say it because I’m sure.” These comments during the pendency of USADA’s investigation by the UCI’s Honorary President, who also currently serves on the UCI Management Committee, are further evidence that even before USADA’s investigation was complete the contention that Mr. Armstrong engaged in doping was pre-judged and rejected by the UCI despite the fact that neither you, nor Mr. Verbruggen, nor any other representative of the UCI, have met with Mr. Hamilton or with any other of USADA’s numerous witnesses concerning these matters. In response to Tyler Hamilton’s public allegations, on May 23, 2011, the UCI issued an official statement expressing that the UCI “categorically rejects the allegations made by Mr. Tyler Hamilton, who claims that Lance Armstrong tested positive for EPO during the 2001 Tour of
Switzerland and had the results covered up after one of his representatives approached the Lausanne laboratory responsible for analyzing the test results from this event.” This is yet another example of the UCI taking a public position on the evidence in this case, during the pendency of an ongoing investigation and before a decision to prosecute had ever been made and it provides further support for the conclusion that by its own actions the UCI has disqualified itself from any role in this case. Moreover, as you know, in this particular case it has been alleged by several athletes that information exists suggesting that the UCI may not have aggressively pursued evidence of Mr. Armstrong’s doping that may have been within the UCI’s possession. According to these athletes, Mr. Armstrong told them that he made one or more payments to the UCI following when Mr. Armstrong allegedly had a positive or suspicious test result. In response to Mr. Landis’s claims regarding a cover-up of Mr. Armstrong’s test results and alleged favoritism towards Armstrong, you, former UCI President Hein Verbruggen and the UCI have filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Landis in the Swiss courts. You took this action despite the fact that an investigation of Mr. Landis’s claims was pending. Having filed a lawsuit
against Mr. Landis it is inconceivable that the UCI could expect that it retains the authority to conduct results management and, if necessary, the authority to present the evidence in an antidoping case where one of the witnesses in that case is, at the same time being sued by the UCI. For this reason as well the UCI has a clear conflict of interest in this matter which disqualifies it from playing a results management role.
You complain that USADA did not share its case file with you in advance of initiating the proceedings against Mr. Armstrong and the other respondents; USADA was under no obligation to do so. Moreover, as explained above, it is clear that the UCI has for some time had a clear conflict of interest in relation to USADA’s investigation of Mr. Armstrong. The UCI has plainly prejudged a portion of the evidence in this case and engaged in legal proceedings directly adverse to a witness. For these reasons, it is readily apparent why it would have been inappropriate for USADA to provide the UCI its investigative file before proceeding with results management, why transfer of the file to the UCI is foreclosed at this time and why any results management role for the UCI is barred. Finally, as explained below, there exists yet another strong additional reason why the UCI is not in a position to be involved in any way in the results management of this matter.
continued in next post
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
(continuation of usada accusations)

Armstrong’s Payments To UCI
In the April 30, 2010, email from Floyd Landis to USA Cycling President Steve Johnson (that is referred to in both of your letters and discussed above) Mr. Landis alleged that while winning the Tour of Switzerland Mr. Armstrong “tested positive for EPO at which point he and Mr. Bruyneel flew to the UCI headquarters and made a financial arrangement with Mr. [Verbruggen] to keep the positive test hidden..” As part of its investigation concerning alleged doping by Mr. Armstrong USADA met with
Lausanne laboratory director Martial Saugy who confirmed various communications and
meetings he claims to have had with UCI personnel, Johann Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong concerning EPO test results for a sample that Mr. Armstrong provided at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. Mr. Saugy told USADA that representatives of UCI were aware of both the indication of EPO use from Mr. Armstrong’s 2001 Tour of Switzerland sample and of the meetings involving Dr. Saugy, Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Bruyneel.
In May 2011 Tyler Hamilton appeared on the 60 Minutes news program and stated Lance
Armstrong had told him that Armstrong had a positive test for EPO at the 2001 Tour of
Switzerland and that Hamilton was told that “Lance’s people and the people from the . . .
governing body of the sport figured out— figured out a way for it to go away.”
In addition, USADA has reviewed statements attributed to you concerning the foregoing and Mr. Armstrong’s payments to the UCI and noted certain apparent inconsistencies. For instance, we understand that on May 23, 2010, you confirmed that Mr. Armstrong did make a payment to the UCI, stating: The UCI received $100,000 from Lance Armstrong in 2005. Four years after this incident [the Tour of Switzerland] is supposed to have taken place. So they are completely separate. That money was given to the UCI to buy a Sysmex machine because we needed to go more into blood controls and we needed a Sysmex machine which cost something like $88,000. It was given to the UCI to buy that
machine and the UCI is still using that machine at international events on a daily
basis. In your May 23, 2010, statement you apparently did not mention any meeting involving both Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong and you relied upon an alleged four year gap between the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, (which took place from June 19 through June 28, 2001), and Mr. Armstrong’s 2005 payment to UCI as demonstrating the absence of a connection between Armstrong’s 2001 Tour of Switzerland test results and his subsequent payment to the UCI. However, in a subsequent article, on May 25, 2010, you apparently conceded that a meeting with Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Armstrong did take place at UCI headquarters less than a year after the 2001 Tour of Switzerland. We understand that you stated: We are looking into it to be fully transparent, by the end of it we will have the full facts available. That will include the invoice of the Sysmex machine,
when it was bought. My understanding, without having examined the full detail,
is that during 2002 Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel visited the UCI
headquarters in Aigle. It had just opened in April 2002, it was some time after
that. They got a guided tour of the centre. They were impressed by what they
saw and Armstrong offered $100,000 to help the development of cycling. The
UCI decided to use the money on a Sysmex machine, my understanding is that the
machine cost around $88,000. We did nothing more about this until 2005 when it
was realized that the money had not been paid by Armstrong. A phone call was
made and the money came in. The foregoing statement appears to be inconsistent with your earlier statement regarding the timing of the communications with Mr. Armstrong and concerning Mr. Bruyneel’s involvement. Also, you initially stated that there was only a single payment to UCI from Mr. Armstrong totaling $100,000. However, you thereafter stated that Mr. Armstrong made two payments to the UCI. According to you, UCI received from Mr. Armstrong “in May 2002 . . . a personal cheque, signed by himself and his wife, for $25,000” and in 2005 a check for $100,000 “from his company CSE.”
Yet, in the arbitration between Mr. Armstrong and SCA Promotions, Mr. Armstrong was
questioned regarding his payments to the UCI and provided responses inconsistent with your explanation. While Mr. Armstrong referenced various possible amounts of payments in his testimony, he ultimately testified that he may have made a payment or payments to the UCI totaling as much as $200,000 and that he may have made pledges of additional payments to the UCI. Therefore, Mr. Armstrong’s prior testimony under oath appears to conflict with your statements regarding the amount of the payments made by Armstrong, also indicating that he may have made additional promises of payments to the UCI.
Mr. Armstrong’s payments to the UCI create a further conflict of interest for the UCI. In
addition, given that there exists evidence that the payments relate to evidence and claims in these very cases it is apparent that the UCI may be called upon to provide evidence in the eventual arbitration hearing.
For this reason as well the UCI is foreclosed from participating in the results management of Mr. Armstrong’s case.
UCI response
…UCI’s alleged conflict of interest
I will not dwell long on your allegations on this subject. We already heard them from another person who had to come back on his statements publicly and once again in court. We contest and reject these allegations which we feel denote a political intention against cycling and the UCI. Your considerations on UCI’s position vis-à-vis the riders apply to all international federations and to all other anti-doping organizations: these organisations can only test with the means that are at their disposal. The UCI has always used all means at its disposal as is shown, by the way, by the names of prominent riders that were found positive after UCI tests, including Mr Hamilton and Mr Landis. This shows also that the UCI is not afraid of extensive testing. The UCI was also the first international federation to introduce new means in the fight against doping, including the urinary EPO test in 2001, the homologous blood transfusion test in 2004 and most recently, the blood passport. WADA has repeatedly commended UCI for its fight against doping. The law enforcement investigations are certainly not limited to cycling as you may know and are investigations that also USADA would be unable to conduct. (For your information we remind you that regarding the Festina case, at that time only the French ministry of sports could test in France: so your argument concerns the then French government rather than the UCI. The Court of appeals of Douai confirmed that the UCI had done all it could in the fight against doping).
You also know that apart from Festina, these investigations also concerned other sports.
On the other hand it is quite scaring that you proffer accusations based upon press articles. Where you indicate that USADA has talked with Mr Saugy, Mr Saugy will have told you that there was no positive test for Mr Armstrong at the 2001 Tour de Suisse.
Mr Verbruggen has said nothing else than that Mr Armstrong never tested positive, which is correct. Anyhow whether there is a conflict of interests is not a matter for USADA to decide. In addition an alleged conflict of interests is no ground for denying UCI its right to conduct the results management. As already indicated in our letter of 13 July, USADA and WADA can appeal to CAS if UCI would decide not to go forward with the case. Whether such decision would be influenced by an alleged conflict of interests is irrelevant. The appeal to CAS is the appropriate way to deal with any such supposed conflict of interests. As was also indicated in our letter of 13 July UCI accepts that the results management is conducted by independent experts. Even regardless of the issues of jurisdiction and conflict of interests this is the best way to proceed as USADA has disqualified itself as a neutral body by proffering pages of accusations against the UCI which denotes a bias against cycling, by ignoring UCI’s efforts in the fight against doping, by judging upon press articles, by refusing to submit the evidence its
accusations are allegedly based upon, by claiming results management authority without
giving evidence of such claim, by calling for witness statements under unknown but
apparently unprecedented conditions which seem also contrary to the Code, by claiming to ban a person for life without elementary due process, by invoking a violation of conspiracy that is not provided for in the rules.
WADA suspicion of uci complicity (from Howman’s 8/8/12 letter).
Further it has not escaped us that the due process and results management arguments raised by the UCI were not forwarded by the UCI until after those arguments were first advanced by Lance Armstrong’s legal team in a lawsuit against USADA
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
After reading the BBC piece, it looks like the UCI is considering a limited appeal that would challenge only the old (>8 years stuff).
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
MarkvW said:
After reading the BBC piece, it looks like the UCI is considering a limited appeal that would challenge only the old (>8 years stuff).
Wonderboy wont want that. If he loses 1 TdF officially, ie UCI strip him he loses all in the public's eyes.

Interesting that UCI appear to more scared of Armstrong than they do of UDSADA/WADA.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
That August 26th letter gets in the way of Armstrong taking one for the team, it seems USADA have gone straight for the jugular.

It's still unclear what evidence that they have and they are keeping their cards close to their chest, I have to think they have evidence of Armstrong bribing Hein beyond inconsistency in statements from Armstrong and UCI or else they wouldn't have pursued it.
 
based on what Phyton has conveniently posted (thanks) I really doubt the UCI could ever challenge the USADA ruling-There is so much dirt to be unveiled on the LA/UCI affair & most of all - so much to lose for them in the short & long term, that is unlikely to see such challenge coming from them. at this point is not about maintaining the lie anymore- is about looking for a way out...
 
Jan 5, 2011
32
0
0
I think the UCI will appeal on the jurisdiction issue. If they win that, they will sit on the evidence until Aug 2013 and then claim the SOL ran out on the TDF wins. They will then blame the USADA for not providing them the evidence sooner.

If they lose the jurisdiction argument, they will go after the SOL and try to save the first 5 tours. That will get LA out of trouble regarding SCA and other legal settlements from that time period.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
hfer07 said:
based on what Phyton has conveniently posted (thanks) I really doubt the UCI could ever challenge the USADA ruling-There is so much dirt to be unveiled on the LA/UCI affair & most of all - so much to lose for them in the short & long term, that is unlikely to see such challenge coming from them. at this point is not about maintaining the lie anymore- is about looking for a way out...
I agree that the UCI won't be able to challenge any of the evidence. I also agree that the UCI's jurisdictional arguments are very (maybe embarrassingly) weak.

But the question of appropriate sanctions is still wide open. Stripping old results (>8 years) really is iffy because of the Code's limitation period. There is a debatable point here.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
jraama said:
I think the UCI will appeal on the jurisdiction issue. If they win that, they will sit on the evidence until Aug 2013 and then claim the SOL ran out on the TDF wins. They will then blame the USADA for not providing them the evidence sooner.

If they lose the jurisdiction argument, they will go after the SOL and try to save the first 5 tours. That will get LA out of trouble regarding SCA and other legal settlements from that time period.
I guess that USADA has foreseen that and will act before then with the full backing of WADA and I cannot see IOC going against WADA, which will leave UCI out in the cold and risk cycling at the Olympics, a big no no for UCI.

As I said I guess McQ/Vebruggen are currently trying to negoiate their a$$es out of trouble with the UCI and IOC before we here anything. But I doubt they have long to do it.

They cannot do a SOL as USADA has stripped Armstrong this year, so UCI cannot do it next year and leave Armstrong with his titles.

It is also about time that the media starts calling out either the Swiss government to change its laws regarding sporting bodies 'hiding' there or demand that these international sporting bodies relocate to Brussels, Paris, London, NY or similar.
 
MarkvW said:
But the question of appropriate sanctions is still wide open. Stripping old results (>8 years) really is iffy because of the Code's limitation period. There is a debatable point here.
Yes and no, IMO. From one perspective, I agree strongly with this. The SOL issue potentially gives UCI the basis for a reasonable appeal that will allow them to see all the evidence (which they have wanted all along), but it might not be necessary for all the evidence to be made public to decide this issue (which they have not wanted all along). The details of the testimony may be necessary to determine if USADA has a good case that LA doped and conspired to dope, but I don’t see that they are very relevant to the SOL. I understand that USADA is using conspiracy to extend the SOL, but whether or not that argument flies doesn’t depend much on the details of the testimony, beyond a certain point. I assume it mostly hinges on legal arguments based on precedent. If UCI accepted sanctions for 2004 and beyond, they could prevent all testimony from that period from seeing light of day, and much of the rest as unnecessary to decide the issue.

However, an appeal could also be very risky for UCI. I think USADA can argue that UCI’s complicity in the doping is another reason for extending the SOL. If they have real evidence of this—and the latest from Tyler on TdS is certainly promising—then it’s pretty obvious, to this non-lawyer, anyway, that the SOL should be tolled. This evidence would also negate another basis on which UCI might also appeal, the jurisdictional. I don’t mean jurisdiction in the general sense, but prior to August 2004, when UCI did not recognize the WADA protocols. Absent evidence of UCI corruption, this is another issue that UCI would have a reasonable shot at winning, and which—again, absent corruption—would not require a thorough exposure of all details of testimony to decide.

One thing we should all be able to agree on is that if UCI doesn’t appeal, it will be strong evidence that they know USADA has the goods on them. If UCI were squeaky clean with regard to LA, why wouldn’t they appeal? They don’t have to rationalize it as opposition to USADA imposing on their turf. They could just say that given the magnitude of the case, it’s important that all the evidence see the light of the day, and that a decision be made in an official hearing that everyone can respect. The fact that they haven't said this yet--that despite USADA's offer to go directly to CAS, UCI is trying to get sole jurisdiction--speaks pretty strongly of their guilt, it seems to me.

What worries me is that if UCI does manage to win the SOL argument on appeal, LA gets to keep 5 or 6 titles without the confession that Tygart said was necessary for this reduced sanction. It’s fine to say that even the loss of one title brings all the others into disrepute, but the spin machine will argue that the evidence was so weak that only one or two titles could be (wrongly) taken from him. It will probably also get him off the hook for SCA and other legal problems. I would be fine with his keeping five or six if he made a complete confession, but as Joe I think pointed out, he will never do that if he can keep most of his empire without doing that.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Merckx index said:
Yes and no, IMO. From one perspective, I agree strongly with this. The SOL issue potentially gives UCI the basis for a reasonable appeal that will allow them to see all the evidence (which they have wanted all along), but it might not be necessary for all the evidence to be made public to decide this issue (which they have not wanted all along). The details of the testimony may be necessary to determine if USADA has a good case that LA doped and conspired to dope, but I don’t see that they are very relevant to the SOL. I understand that USADA is using conspiracy to extend the SOL, but whether or not that argument flies doesn’t depend much on the details of the testimony, beyond a certain point. I assume it mostly hinges on legal arguments based on precedent. If UCI accepted sanctions for 2004 and beyond, they could prevent all testimony from that period from seeing light of day, and much of the rest as unnecessary to decide the issue.

However, an appeal could also be very risky for UCI. I think USADA can argue that UCI’s complicity in the doping is another reason for extending the SOL. If they have real evidence of this—and the latest from Tyler on TdS is certainly promising—then it’s pretty obvious, to this non-lawyer, anyway, that the SOL should be tolled. This evidence would also negate another basis on which UCI might also appeal, the jurisdictional. I don’t mean jurisdiction in the general sense, but prior to August 2004, when UCI did not recognize the WADA protocols. Absent evidence of UCI corruption, this is another issue that UCI would have a reasonable shot at winning, and which—again, absent corruption—would not require a thorough exposure of all details of testimony to decide.

One thing we should all be able to agree on is that if UCI doesn’t appeal, it will be strong evidence that they know USADA has the goods on them. If UCI were squeaky clean with regard to LA, why wouldn’t they appeal? They don’t have to rationalize it as opposition to USADA imposing on their turf. They could just say that given the magnitude of the case, it’s important that all the evidence see the light of the day, and that a decision be made in an official hearing that everyone can respect. The fact that they haven't said this yet--that despite USADA's offer to go directly to CAS, UCI is trying to get sole jurisdiction--speaks pretty strongly of their guilt, it seems to me.

What worries me is that if UCI does manage to win the SOL argument on appeal, LA gets to keep 5 or 6 titles without the confession that Tygart said was necessary for this reduced sanction. It’s fine to say that even the loss of one title brings all the others into disrepute, but the spin machine will argue that the evidence was so weak that only one or two titles could be (wrongly) taken from him. It will probably also get him off the hook for SCA and other legal problems. I would be fine with his keeping five or six if he made a complete confession, but as Joe I think pointed out, he will never do that if he can keep most of his empire without doing that.
I'm thinking of a situation where the UCI fully accepts all the evidence and accepts the jurisdiction of USADA, but then argues that the "reasoned decision" doesn't support stripping results back more than 8 years. USADA isn't going to be able to say: "Wait! We have even more evidence to strip Lance's results." That kind of a process would not be very efficient, or fair, because it would encourage sandbagging.

I agree with you that the UCI probably wants to avoid a hearing where evidence is presented.
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
From Race Radio's twitter:

"Pat and his Co- Conspirators are willing to risk cycling getting kicked out of the Olympics for their buddy Lance. Stupid move"

Which obviously suggest's they are going to appeal.

I'm just hoping it ultimately leads to their demise.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY