Do you think the uci will appeal to cas ?

Page 6 - 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 .
veganrob said:
I believe there is precedence for shortening bans in return for cooperating. Is that correct?
Yes, there's plenty of precedence, but I was (mistakenly) under the impression that the standard was to halve the suspension. According to the WADA code, however, the relevant organization can use their subjective judgment to determine how much the athlete cooperated and how important the bigger fish they helped catch is. USADA decided that this was a pretty big deal and that the cooperation was very significant, so they applied the maximum 3/4 reduction:
The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended.
UCI could argue that their systematic doping (for up to 7-9 years in the most extreme cases) is such a serious offense the maximum reduction shouldn't be applied, and try to get them a one year suspension. More than that would be pushing it, IMO.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
it's exactly 5 hours left before we will learn...

i just wanted to register my latest gut feeling that the appeal is coming.
:mad:
there will be plenty of uci assurances that they don't question the evidence but the procedure and therefore, 'as we,the uci wanted all along', the matter needs to be sorted out by cas...

they will shoot crap like 'the usada may have had the power to investigate, and it did a splendid job at that, but the sanctions against both armstrong and the usada witnesses were from get-go the uci prerogative'

in a way, i am happy if things turn that way, because if they do, the key to understanding usada's allegations of uci's conflict of interest will have to be exposed in a hearing.

this would be a delightful news for paul kimmage !
 
Aug 30, 2012
152
0
0
The great irony in all of this is that a UCI appeal might be the best possible outcome in terms of bringing about the legitimate change in our sport that most of us want to see. However, a defining moment looms regardless of what UCI oozes out of itself this morning -- do not lose sight of that.

For the record, I gather there are others who expect roughly the following and I concur that it's about what we'll see.

1. Uphold Armstrong ban.
2. Castigate USADA both on jurisdictional grounds but also on more ambiguous ones of mission, principle and objective. This part should be comically savvy.
3. Run the sixth month suspensions out to two years where applicable.
4. Tout self as victim.

As mentioned, nothing original above, but I suspect those who have deducted this conclusion are likely on the right track. The fallout of the past two weeks has exceeded even my most optimistic expectations (which is saying something), but that very fallout has rendered an appeal implausible at this point. Despite my hideously low expectations when it comes to its conduct, UCI couldn't be that stupid considering all that has happened the past two weeks.

Thus, UCI will do all it can to launch a PR appeal instead of a formal one. And perpetuate it for as long as it can. Its power is at stake. There is no shame.
 
Jun 26, 2012
253
0
0
In Australia Foxsports are going to cross live to it on their Foxsports news channel from 10pmAEST so I guess that will extend to their foxsports website too
 
python said:
there will be plenty of uci assurances that they don't question the evidence but the procedure and therefore, 'as we,the uci wanted all along', the matter needs to be sorted out by cas...

they will shoot crap like 'the usada may have had the power to investigate, and it did a splendid job at that, but the sanctions against both armstrong and the usada witnesses were from get-go the uci prerogative'
And if they win? Are they going to say the evidence against LA is not sufficient to warrant the sanctions? If they do, USADA then becomes free to take over the case, as UCI admitted before, and we will be right back where we are now. As I understand the situation, USADA would not have to appeal. They would simply say, OK, you have jurisdiction to initiate the case, and the evidence does not look strong enough to you, but since you have now had your say, we are looking at it independently, as is our right after your initial jurisdiction, and we find the evidence compelling. What are you going to do about it?

IOW, an appeal on the basis of procedure (jurisdiction) makes little sense unless it is accompanied by an appeal against the evidence as well. If CAS rules only on procedure and UCI wins, USADA will be back with the same conclusion, and UCI will have to go to CAS again to overturn that decision.

Of course, UCI could, if they won an appeal on jurisdiction, say that they agree with USADA's conclusions. But that would look really silly, to go through all that just to say at the end that they don't challenge the outcome.

As far as the sanctions against the witnesses, people here continue to ignore the fact that the six months is only the prospective portion of the sanctions. The much larger portion is retrospective, losing results, and for most of them, that is quite substantial. Again, the Contador case is instructive. I didn't hear anyone on this forum complain that Contador only got six months, when in fact that is what he did get in the same sense that the witnesses against LA are getting six months. Contador got two years, but most of it was in the past. The witnesses are all getting at least two years, and some are getting far more.
 
Aug 27, 2012
1,436
0
0
The UCI conclusion to uphold USADA decision or take this to arbitration is important.

But the bigger picture is what plans does UCI leadership have to clean up cycling and not have this happen again? Plans that can give sports fans real hope after what has happened in the past 14 years.

I hope that the media don't lose this part in their coverage over the next 12 hours.
 

airstream

BANNED
Mar 29, 2011
5,123
0
0
On base of what UCI can win the case? Aren't witness' statements considered a proper proof or what? Curiously enough, USADA couldn't hook Lance's probe from 00-02 Tours to retest, why? As a matter of principle, transfusions were undetectable back then and it would be the simplest way to expose Armstrong, but it didn't happen. Though, I doubt those probe exist nowadays... :eek: :p
 
Aug 30, 2012
152
0
0
Merckx index said:
As far as the sanctions against the witnesses, people here continue to ignore the fact that the six months is only the prospective portion of the sanctions. The much larger portion is retrospective, losing results, and for most of them, that is quite substantial. Again, the Contador case is instructive. I didn't hear anyone on this forum complain that Contador only got six months, when in fact that is what he did get in the same sense that the witnesses against LA are getting six months. Contador got two years, but most of it was in the past. The witnesses are all getting at least two years, and some are getting far more.
All correct from a logic standpoint, but the Contador matter wasn't a component of a situation that called the power structure into question, so it isn't necessarily directly applicable. UCI will do something in attempt to marginalize USADA, but the question is 'what?'

Its options have become limited at this point, but if you try to put yourself in their minds (yes, a rather daunting task), running them out to two years serves two ends: 1. Reaffirms who actually has the power, and 2. Can be marketed as an example of how "seriously they take these matters."

Of course to me it's a preposterous course of action, but when you try to surmise what an illogical operation might do given limited options, it becomes rather plausible.
 
Oct 12, 2012
99
0
0
There was an interview with the head of the sports section of "De Telegraaf" the biggest newspaper in the netherlands earlier this morning in which the dilemma for UCI got broadened. He cited that as the UCI is based in switserland it is bound by swiss laws. The swiss law on doping seems to be pretty black and white. You either have evidence that someone doped (evidence being a positive test, not someone else (or 26 people for that matter) stateing that you doped) or you don't. Without a real positive test there is no proof that someone doped accoring to swiss law, so no grounds for a ban of any kind.

The head of the sport section compared it with a crimesite. There is no body, no weapon, no blooddrops, just motive.

based on UCI's trackrecord and the statements above i expect UCI to go for an extension of the sixmonths bans for those who admitted themselves to have been doping and divert judgement on armstrong to CAS under the pretence of jurisdiction / evidence
 
Jun 21, 2009
847
0
0
re: the post above mine: so Switzerland must be the only country in the world not to consider witness statements evidence.

FFS, surely swiss law would have to listen to the 26 people who saw it if Lance had shot Jan Ullrich dead in the head.

so why not when it comes to doping.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
skimazk said:
There was an interview with the head of the sports section of "De Telegraaf" the biggest newspaper in the netherlands earlier this morning in which the dilemma for UCI got broadened. He cited that as the UCI is based in switserland it is bound by swiss laws. The swiss law on doping seems to be pretty black and white. You either have evidence that someone doped (evidence being a positive test, not someone else (or 26 people for that matter) stateing that you doped) or you don't. Without a real positive test there is no proof that someone doped accoring to swiss law, so no grounds for a ban of any kind.

The head of the sport section compared it with a crimesite. There is no body, no weapon, no blooddrops, just motive.

based on UCI's trackrecord and the statements above i expect UCI to go for an extension of the sixmonths bans for those who admitted themselves to have been doping and divert judgement on armstrong to CAS under the pretence of jurisdiction / evidence
And if CAS uphold USADA, UCI can appeal to higher Swiss court and have it quashed?
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
I'd like to see Hein and Pat appeal the cases of Dr. Ferrari and Dr. Garcia del Moral too. Mhahahhah.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them appeal the reduced sentences for Barry, Danielson, Hincapie, Leipehimer, Vandevelde and Zabriskie and ask for a year rather than six months, just for the ****ing match. But they can't demand the full two years, they have after all let of others, like Di Luca, with reduced sentences for cooperation.
 
Jun 28, 2011
1,394
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
And if CAS uphold USADA, UCI can appeal to higher Swiss court and have it quashed?
It's called Court of Arbitration for Sport for a reason. If the UCI goes to CAS, then it accepts that CAS' decision is binding.

EDIT : Wiki says that CAS decisions can be appealed to the Supreme court of Switzerland, so I was wrong. But the UCI will only realistically go to CAS on the basis that USADA don't have jurisdiction, not that the evidence is not enough to convict LA of doping.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
skimazk said:
There was an interview with the head of the sports section of "De Telegraaf" the biggest newspaper in the netherlands earlier this morning in which the dilemma for UCI got broadened. He cited that as the UCI is based in switserland it is bound by swiss laws. The swiss law on doping seems to be pretty black and white. You either have evidence that someone doped (evidence being a positive test, not someone else (or 26 people for that matter) stateing that you doped) or you don't. Without a real positive test there is no proof that someone doped accoring to swiss law, so no grounds for a ban of any kind.

The head of the sport section compared it with a crimesite. There is no body, no weapon, no blooddrops, just motive.

based on UCI's trackrecord and the statements above i expect UCI to go for an extension of the sixmonths bans for those who admitted themselves to have been doping and divert judgement on armstrong to CAS under the pretence of jurisdiction / evidence
Sounds like Telesport says that in Switzerland you can murder someone in front of eleven witnesses, then remove all physical evidence, and if the eleven witnesses tells what they saw to the police, the judicial system still can't touch you. I don't think it is that bad in Switzerland, but you know there must be something wrong with Swizz laws when organizations like UCI and FIFA has their headquarters there.
 
Mar 31, 2010
18,137
1
0
neineinei said:
Sounds like Telesport says that in Switzerland you can murder someone in front of eleven witnesses, then remove all physical evidence, and if the eleven witnesses tells what they saw to the police, the judicial system still can't touch you. I don't think it is that bad in Switzerland, but you know there must be something wrong with Swizz laws when organizations like UCI and FIFA has their headquarters there.
I think that has to do with money and the central position that they are there
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
neineinei said:
Sounds like Telesport says that in Switzerland you can murder someone in front of eleven witnesses, then remove all physical evidence, and if the eleven witnesses tells what they saw to the police, the judicial system still can't touch you. I don't think it is that bad in Switzerland, but you know there must be something wrong with Swizz laws when organizations like UCI and FIFA has their headquarters there.
definitely.
Note also that Swiss law endulges bribery, which we all know is on the daily menu in organizations like FIFA and IOC.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Begs an interesting question - if UCI appeal to CAS, does that put the individual proceedings on hold until resolution (like Bruyneel for example?)
 
Merckx index said:
Again, the Contador case is instructive. I didn't hear anyone on this forum complain that Contador only got six months, when in fact that is what he did get in the same sense that the witnesses against LA are getting six months.
Well, you weren't listening then. Many people, myself included, did complain. Contador got effectively a 6-month suspension without cooperation or confession and lost one year and a half of results. The witnesses who got the softer sentences got a 6-month suspension and lost 2 years of results despite full cooperation.
 

Fidolix

BANNED
Jan 16, 2012
997
0
0
It´s complex.

Both LA and UCI are swimming in a pool of gasoline, and the question is, which of them will throw the first match.
Who will benefit most according to what ever decision UCI will announce, and what would a psychopath do when cornered.

No doubt LA will blow the whistle on UCI if they appeal, he probably already told them that.
I can´t decide, but I hope for an appeal.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY