Do you think the uci will appeal to cas ?

Page 4 - 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 .
Jan 5, 2011
32
0
0
Benotti69 said:
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.
If UCI wins jurisdiction from CAS then USADA's ruling is nullified, thus the SOL is in play for the UCI. I agree with you that USADA must have foreseen this and will try to cut UCI off at the knees by making damaging info public.

I also think that UCI can challenge SOL without falling afoul of WADA and IOC rules. UCI will justify it by saying it is to ensure fair and equal treatment for all cyclists, and that allowing federations to go back in time willy-nilly to change old results is impractical and damaging to the sport. As long as they keep a ban in place and don’t directly contest the charges, they may be able to argue SOL without risk to the olymipcs.
 
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?
Interesting point of view-we know he was fed up with the payments to the UCI people keeping the chaperons away from his riders, plus the pro tour system that was keeping the teams from getting some cash from tv rights and so on....
Bottom line is that Bruyneel is so much alike Lance that he would turn the world upside down to get what he wants-even if he has to rat his partner to get his way....
 
Aug 25, 2012
51
0
0
Fat Pat will probably go on the offensive to protect all involved in the farce that is professional cycling. My guess is they will use the Forrest Gump approach..Stupid is as stupid does. Hopefully he'll take a bullet in the buttock and end up a shrimp'n boat capt with Hein in tow.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
python said:
i have posted elsewhere my thoughts on whether the uci will appeal the usada’s verdict to cas.

Do you think the uci will appeal to cas ? Yes/No.

Go ahead and explain your position if you should.
It is rather simple to answer: No.

Of course, UCI could appeal, but they have no basis on which to appeal.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Telmisartan new said:
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.
Exactly. USADA had its ducks lined up. And they are still lining up.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
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), . . . .
SOL is not a basis for a "reasonable" appeal in this case.

It is impossible in the case of Lance that evidence would be presented in an appeal. It could only be a question of procedure, as it was in the Austin Fed case - but this time the questions of jurisdiction and due process would be even more untenable than they were in the Fed case.

[I doubt the UCI ever really "wanted to see the evidence". The know very well what it is.]
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Benotti69 said:
1. Wonderboy wont want that. If he loses 1 TdF officially, ie UCI strip him he loses all in the public's eyes.

2. Interesting that UCI appear to more scared of Armstrong than they do of USADA/WADA.
1. True. But the 7 are already a done deal.

2. UCI was never scared of Armstrong. They are scared of the truth about themselves.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
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.
USADA won't be making any deals with UCI.

Hein will not go down. Pat will take the fall.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
MarkvW said:
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."
QuickStepper and you point toward the one truly salient issue here. And indeed the UCI did have some cogency in their argument regarding jurisdiction and they could even try to push it in arbitration. There is a conflict between the UCI rules and WADA. However, even giving this conflict they could not win in arbitration.

More importantly, they do not want to emphasize this conflict because it would bring UCI in conflict with the IOC. Armstrong ain't worth it.

This is evident in the UCI statement to velonation following the Fed case acknowledging the court's decision (rather strange) and (rather) explicitly giving the USADA jurisdiction. It is even more evident in the recent FFC press release. Again, ducks lining up.

People who continue to suggest that UCI still has a role in some part of the USADA decision are really just taking a Lance PR line.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,921
0
0
Thankfully this thread had a poll attached and so it could not be folded into the kitchen sink thread. It remains useful and coherent.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
The poll I see asks the question whether I have posted my opinion in another thread? Wierd poll question.

No, I don't think I have - and no, I don't think the UCI will appeal. I think McQuaid will feel he would look too silly.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,921
0
0
LauraLyn said:
A very good clarification of the remaining procedural steps for the UCI and Lance:

http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/usada-case-against-lance-armstrong-remaining-procedural-steps/

It provides responses to some of the questions raised in this thread.
Thanks! Excellent!

Most important, I think:

If USADA’s sanctions are not appealed, USADA will rely on UCI and the organizations that run the races (e.g. the Amaury Sports Organization runs the Tour de France) to actually enforce the sanctions. Under the “Mutual Recognition” rule in the Code, those organizations are obligated to enforce USADA’s sanctions.
The "mutual recognition" rule is Section 15.4:

15.4 Mutual Recognition

15.4.1 Subject to the right to appeal provided in
Article 13, Testing, therapeutic use exemptions
and hearing results or other final
adjudications of any Signatory which are
consistent with the Code and are within that
Signatory's authority, shall be recognized
and respected by all other Signatories.

15.4.2 Signatories shall recognize the same actions
of other bodies which have not accepted the
Code if the rules of those bodies are
otherwise consistent with the Code.
So they have to appeal and win the appeal, or go along with USADA. No wonder USADA is so confident.
 

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
I think they will appeal some aspect of it, no matter how minor.

For 2 reasons:

1. they feel they need to project some element of relevancy in the entire process. In fact I would not be surprised if Tygart realises this and offers a concession (?). It's effectively what the tail between the legs letter said, post Sparks dismissal, "UCI just feel they - as the world governing body - should be allowed to be part of the process, that's all. Not defending Lance at all, no siree".
2. Pat is scared of Lance and any show of support will help him with that. "But Lance, we tried, it's the best we could do, our hands are tied!" Almost sounds like a song.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
python said:

UCI may not appeal Lance Armstrong ban


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-may-not-appeal-lance-armstrong-ban

If I was a betting man, I'd give the fat's statement as much attention as he proved not being worth of. . . . QUOTE]

The whole idea of "seeing the evidence" or "seeing the case file" is just blowing empty air. The UCI will receive a reasoned decision and that is all.

McQuaid's statements are empty. Armstrong is meaningless for the UCI. The only thing the UCI is concerned to do is to keep their own complicity and corruption from coming fully to view for the public.

It would be very foolish for UCI to appeal. They want this to go away more than anyone else. I expect to see a statement saying "We reviewed the reasoned decision and the evidence [which they will have never seen, still they will say it] and we agree with the USADA's decision and we will implement the sanctions [and then that might take forever (and ever)]."
 
Sep 23, 2011
536
0
0
Pat's latest communication is a pure holding statement.

He cannot say that he will appeal before he receives the file. Once he gets the file he can say (if he wants) that he was surprised how weak / technically incorrect the file is and that he is forced to appeal.

So really, his latest statement tells us nothing at all
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/07/2990135/world-cycling-considers-introducing.html

The cn article I linked above only capture a tiny part of the fat's interview...

He is thinking of 'amnesty' now and he is not specifying if the admissions are a part... Obviously more toilet clogging in preparation to white wash the king doper.

Also interesting is the ioc member statement about the armstrong's bronze in 2000

Fat's whining about the usada not yet giving him full file is also transparent...

He wants to see the evidence of the uci corruption. nothing more or less. He could give a dead rat's aresss about armstrong as long as his and heiny's crimes are not public...

Hence the usada taking their time
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
python said:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/07/2990135/world-cycling-considers-introducing.html

The cn article I linked above only capture a tiny part of the fat's interview...

He is thinking of 'amnesty' now and he is not specifying if the admissions are a part... Obviously more toilet clogging in preparation to white wash the king doper.

Also interesting is the ioc member statement about the armstrong's bronze in 2000

Fat's whining about the usada not yet giving him full file is also transparent...

He wants to see the evidence of the uci corruption. nothing more or less. He could give a dead rat's aresss about armstrong as long as his and heiny's crimes are not public...

Hence the usada taking their time
some very interesting info in the article I linked above.

The uci prez said they have recorded about............

215 uci sponsored tests.

We know the usada number was 2 dozens tests at most.


Was armstrong tested by the outer space cycling federation?

Has uci thus hinted at the lies of armstrong to save their own skin
 
Mar 10, 2009
6,158
1
0
python said:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/07/2990135/world-cycling-considers-introducing.html

He is thinking of 'amnesty' now and he is not specifying if the admissions are a part... Obviously more toilet clogging in preparation to white wash the king doper.
I'm sure Pat will be the first in line.

Amnesty for the riders but what about those who will still be out there shopping their PED's? Looks like S.O.S. come the following year.

If they give Amnesty now will they then apply life bans for anyone infraction after? Or just continue the charade?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
ElChingon said:
I'm sure Pat will be the first in line.

Amnesty for the riders but what about those who will still be out there shopping their PED's? Looks like S.O.S. come the following year.

If they give Amnesty now will they then apply life bans for anyone infraction after? Or just continue the charade?
as much as I don't trust the fat, the very fact he brought up the amnesty is, Imo, an indication he is prepared to accommodate wada/usada charge but under the condition they will not dig into the cycling's dark past.

My guess is, as stated before, the uci is miscalculation if they have not gotten the wada message - clean up or else
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
python said:
as much as I don't trust the fat, the very fact he brought up the amnesty is, Imo, an indication he is prepared to accommodate wada/usada charge but under the condition they will not dig into the cycling's dark past.

My guess is, as stated before, the uci is miscalculation if they have not gotten the wada message - clean up or else
I think you have been very good on the questions of what will UCI do.

I think this amnesty will be applied across the board by UCI. They will say that it must apply to everyone who ever had a UCI licence and it must be secret what riders come and tell to UCI only officials.

This will let Armstrong/Bruyneel off the hook. It will no doubt get IOC full backing and WADA/USADA will have a hard time fighting it.

I guess that IOC may introduce something similar to all IOC sports. How will they sell this?

They will up the bans and or introudce fines for doping after the amnesty.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS