Do you think the uci will appeal to cas ?

Page 5 - 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 .

the big ring

BANNED
Jul 28, 2009
2,135
0
0
I found it interesting Pat is on both the executive commitee and the foundation board of WADA.

After interpreting the code so wrong, he is till there on those boards / commitees.
 
Aug 2, 2010
217
0
0
How quickly is UCI required to respond to USADA's reasoned decision?

Put another way: How long can UCI stonewall?

It would appear that the new LA strategy is to get UCI to delay, delay, delay until such time LA's political cronies can defund or wreck USADA, replace Tygart with a sock puppet, etc.

Tell me this won't work!
 
Jul 17, 2009
162
0
0
Would Lance want UCI to appeal to CAS? I don't think so, because it could mean another trial, another opportunity for the witnesses to spill the beans in public.
 
Jul 13, 2012
342
0
0
the big ring said:
Is it just me, or is there a perfect storm brewing?
There's a storm brewing, McQuaid is a goner (although the amnesty might be his parting shot so that it looks like he left an anti-doping legacy when everyone knows the reverse is true),in the fullness of time our favourite sociopath is losing ALL his titles and then hopefully the sport can rebuild to an extent.Although i doubt whether it will ever truly be clean.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Danilot said:
Would Lance want UCI to appeal to CAS? I don't think so, because it could mean another trial, another opportunity for the witnesses to spill the beans in public.
It is no longer about "what Lance wants." He is looking at the drive train from underneath.
 
Jul 17, 2009
162
0
0
LauraLyn said:
It is no longer about "what Lance wants." He is looking at the drive train from underneath.
If, as some suspect, Fat Pat's strategy is geared towards protecting Lance, then I think he'll be listening to what Pharmstrong says.
 
Danilot said:
If, as some suspect, Fat Pat's strategy is geared towards protecting Lance, then I think he'll be listening to what Pharmstrong says.
I think all the UCI protection of Armstrong is best explained by the golden goose theory. No one can deny that Armstrong and his return-from-cancer story brought a ton of attention and money to cycling, and that many besides him became rich from it. It's no wonder that they wanted to protect him and the myth.

So now as the revelation spreads that all the luster on the goose came from a thin film of fool's gold, all the reasons they have to protect him dissipate.

Now what they need to protect is their involvement in protecting Armstrong in the past. Look for that motive to explain their actions from here on out. I don't see how listening to him would be part of that. This can be seen in the evolution of their statements about the case in the last few weeks. In a short time they've gone from standing with him on the jurisdiction argument to saying they will have no problems banning him and don't plan on appealing to CAS.
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Ninety5rpm said:
I think all the UCI protection of Armstrong is best explained by the golden goose theory. No one can deny that Armstrong and his return-from-cancer story brought a ton of attention and money to cycling, and that many besides him became rich from it. It's no wonder that they wanted to protect him and the myth.

So now as the revelation spreads that all the luster on the goose came from a thin film of fool's gold, all the reasons they have to protect him dissipate.

Now what they need to protect is their involvement in protecting Armstrong in the past. Look for that motive to explain their actions from here on out. I don't see how listening to him would be part of that. This can be seen in the evolution of their statements about the case in the last few weeks. In a short time they've gone from standing with him on the jurisdiction argument to saying they will have no problems banning him and don't plan on appealing to CAS.
This came upon McDruggen like a whirlwind. He still doesn't have a complete understanding of how bad the disclosures are going to be.

The first response was immobility.
The second response was "shut this thing down." (Panic and Fear?)
The third response is "we're participating in the process." (Damage Control?)

That's how I see it, anyway.
 

LauraLyn

BANNED
Jul 13, 2012
594
0
0
Danilot said:
If, as some suspect, Fat Pat's strategy is geared towards protecting Lance, then I think he'll be listening to what Pharmstrong says.
It is the "if" that doesn't make sense. McQuaid has something much closer to his person than Armstrong that needs protecting.

Lance is a UCI liability. If you haven't seen that by now, McQuaid and Verbruggen certainly have.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
UCI still waiting for USADA file on Armstrong, confirms appeal unlikely

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12853/UCI-still-waiting-for-USADA-file-on-Armstrong-confirms-appeal-unlikely.aspx

According to Carpani, the latter is unlikely to happen. “Unless USADA’s decision and file gives serious reasons to do otherwise, UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS or not to recognise USADA’s sanctions on Lance Armstrong,” he said.
i say they will get the reason decision early next week. but the complete file ? forget it. the uci will only see SOME of the complete file if they arbitrate. as many said all along, unlikely.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
in a little over 24 hours we will learn.

what has changed since i started the poll ?

well, a lot !

the 1000-page usada report was published. based on its content, almost all sponsors recognized the fraud.

but will the uci listen ?

at the time of starting the poll, i was about 80-90% sure they wont appeal. now, i still believe they wont appeal the core of the RD.

but i am not as sure as i was.

having seen the uci rage when their authority was challenged by usada, it is hard for me to imagine they would be just robber stamping everything usada said.

if merely for show, they still can
....challenge the stature of limitation
....drag 6-months suspensions
...invent new reasons as to why they still have the authority.

there is no leg to stand on almost all of these issues, but counting on the uci predictability has proved futile in the past.
 
It would be risky for UCI to appeal, IMHO, because they already are under suspicion for showing favouritism to Pharmstrong. And the Novitzky investigation remains a potential sore spot. Wouldn't they look the fools if they were to appeal, only to have Pharmstrong later convicted in open court -- where the burden of proof is substantially higher -- of many of the same offences they refused to accept USADA's evidence of.

The timing also leads me to believe they will not appeal. If naught but for the sake of appearances, if they had intended to appeal, they should have waited until closer to the deadline to demonstrate it was a difficult but well-considered decision. That they took a decision so quickly would lead me to believe that they too found the USADA reasoning overwhelmingly convincing.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
The question is whether Lance has sufficient smoking gun evidence of corruption possibly criminal nature to blackmail them into " appeal or else I tell all". Wounded animals as lance now is are dangerous when cornered and will play whatever cards he has saved up for such a rainy day. " If I go, you will go too"? They may just be pushed inti appealling the SOL on the pre 2005 tours - which is a complex legal argument - to save Lance a lot of financial grief without being seen to condone drugs. I can imagine some deniable conversations are happening...
 
therealtimshady said:
The uci will do everything to protect their beloved lance
Disagree. The UCI got on the Lance wagon for their own profit. Unless they believe Armstrong will bring them down, they'll throw him under the bus and pray this doesn't get worse for them. Right now, Armstrong would be bluffing if he threatened them with speaking out.
 
hrotha said:
Disagree. The UCI got on the Lance wagon for their own profit. Unless they believe Armstrong will bring them down, they'll throw him under the bus and pray this doesn't get worse for them. Right now, Armstrong would be bluffing if he threatened them with speaking out.
Wouldn't surprise me if they pour scorn on the usada report and continue their denial of lances doping like they have done for years - it really winds me up how they couldn't get their cries of "rubbish" about lances doping allegations over the years quick enough yet do a lap of honour about hounding and catching other
 
Jul 19, 2010
741
1
0
therealtimshady said:
The uci will do everything to protect their beloved lance
In the past, yes, UCI and Armstrong would gladly scratch each other's behind. But the USADA report changed everything. UCI wants to survive this and the only way to do that is to throw Armstrong under the bus.

Also sponsors fled from Armstrong like the plague, so discounting the remaining handful of diehards, Armstrong is a lonely man. He might still have his multi-millions, but his power has dwindled.

I'd say UCI would drive that final nail in the coffin if they want to move on with their clean cycling motto.

Also, losing Rabobank is a big blow to pro cycling. Appealing will risk losing more sponsors because they would see Rabobank's point: there's no point investing in cycling in the current environment. UCI and Armstrong were both peas in the same pot.
 
The pullout by the sponsors slew the golden goose that Armstrong was to the UCI. No point in defending him any more. To the contrary, he's a liability now, as the Rabobank decision shows.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
I believe that they will let the sanctions stand against LA and take CVV, Levi, DZ and Danielson to CAS for sanctions of 2 years for each, instead of the 6 months, effectively ending their careers. It is the UCI's only way of telling USADA to F*** Off, and "show them who is the boss".
 
No the UCI will not appeal the USADA verdict. Lance will then confess, exposing the UCI as corrupt. The IOC will then throw cycling out of the Olympics (or at least threaten to). There will be a massive clear out at the UCI.

Maybe. :eek:
 
spetsa said:
I believe that they will let the sanctions stand against LA and take CVV, Levi, DZ and Danielson to CAS for sanctions of 2 years for each, instead of the 6 months, effectively ending their careers. It is the UCI's only way of telling USADA to F*** Off, and "show them who is the boss".
They might be able to lengthen the bans to 1 year, but 2 years would be indefensible and I doubt CAS would stand for it. They cooperated, after all.

On the other hand, if they appealed I could see them getting the bans extended to 1 year.
 
hrotha said:
They might be able to lengthen the bans to 1 year, but 2 years would be indefensible and I doubt CAS would stand for it. They cooperated, after all.

On the other hand, if they appealed I could see them getting the bans extended to 1 year.
I believe there is precedence for shortening bans in return for cooperating. Is that correct?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY