Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, Dr. Michele Ferrari and Jose “Pepe” Martí life bans

Nov 26, 2010
123
0
0
thehog said:
Needs its own thread:

USADA announces Dr. Luis Garcia del Moral, Dr. Michele Ferrari and Jose “Pepe” Martí have all received lifetime bans for USPS doping.

http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-usps7102012
So Where is Bruyneel in the process? Did he seek an extension from USADA or did he ask for a hearing?

Press has done crappy job of sorting this out but the USADA announcement today clarifies a little.
 
Oct 30, 2011
2,642
0
0
Nice one USADA.

"The other respondents in this case have either asked for and been granted a five-day extension to complete their response, or have requested to move forward with an arbitration hearing where all evidence will be presented, witness testimony will be given under oath, and an independent group of arbitrators will ultimately decide the outcome of the case. USADA will continue to follow all of the established procedures that were approved by athletes, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and all Olympic sports organizations in compliance with federal law."

Seems Lance is going ahead with the hearing.
 
Nov 26, 2010
123
0
0
Caruut said:
Nice one USADA.

"The other respondents in this case have either asked for and been granted a five-day extension to complete their response, or have requested to move forward with an arbitration hearing where all evidence will be presented, witness testimony will be given under oath, and an independent group of arbitrators will ultimately decide the outcome of the case. USADA will continue to follow all of the established procedures that were approved by athletes, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and all Olympic sports organizations in compliance with federal law."

Seems Lance is going ahead with the hearing.
Not sure how you can be sure of this?
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Caruut said:
Nice one USADA.

"The other respondents in this case have either asked for and been granted a five-day extension to complete their response, or have requested to move forward with an arbitration hearing where all evidence will be presented, witness testimony will be given under oath, and an independent group of arbitrators will ultimately decide the outcome of the case. USADA will continue to follow all of the established procedures that were approved by athletes, the U.S. Olympic Committee, and all Olympic sports organizations in compliance with federal law."

Seems Lance is going ahead with the hearing.
Or he's waiting for the judge to rule on his refiling and thus requested an extension.
 
Clemson Cycling said:
What are they banned from?
It's all in the linked release by USADA:


These activities are defined as anti-doping rule violations under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing and the International Cycling Union (UCI) Anti-Doping Rules (UCI ADR), both of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code and the WADA Prohibited List.

In accordance with the WADA Code and UCI ADR, aggravating circumstances including involvement in multiple anti-doping rule violations as well as trafficking, administration and/or attempted administration of a prohibited substance or method, justify a period of ineligibility greater than the standard sanction, and as such, all parties involved have received a lifetime period of ineligibility for their anti-doping rule violations. A Lifetime period of Ineligibility as described in the Code prevents these individuals from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory.
They're banned from any olympic sport and any sport whose federations are signatory to the WADA code.
 
screaming fist said:
A Lifetime period of Ineligibility as described in the Code prevents these individuals from participating in any activity or competition organized by any signatory to the Code or any member of any signatory"
Does this mean that USADA have just banned three backroom people from competing as athletes?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Anyone else refreshed that Travis is cleaning house?

It's about effing time.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
So with respect to Dr Ferrari and pro riders: They were not allowed to work with him before but now they are really not allowed to work with him?
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
Finally, something concrete for the Clinic to get their teeth into!:D
Goes worldwide, I take it?


Uncle Pat said that they can make it so.
Given it applies to all WADA signatories (and affiliates) the ban extends worldwide but still allows some limited sporting involvement (if they are accepted by those participants that are not WADA affiliated).
 
Jul 5, 2009
2,440
3
0
The USADA is responsible for implementing the World Anti Doping Code (re: WADA) in the United States. All national federations of olympic sports are signatories to this code. Thus, USADA has the authority to issue a ban which is valid in every country that has a national cycling federation.

Furthermore, if USADA has evidence of a failure to comply with the WADC then they are the ones who have jurisdiction to prosecute the case. It doesn't have to be sent to the athlete's country of origin.

John Swanson

Clemson Cycling said:
And surely the USADA has no jurisdiction in Europe
 
Clemson Cycling said:
Fair enough. So the UCI will enforce the rulings of the USADA regardless of nationality of the offender or location of doping?
Now all they have to do is enforce the actions against LA, and this whole jurisdiction claim he made in the complaint collapses. In fact, he may have handed USADA the rope to hang him, because the complaint goes on and on about how UCI has the authority to sanction LA. If they support USADA's action, LA's lawyers have given the jurisdiction argument to USADA, gift-wrapped.

They will then have to argue that UCI is a state actor, but much harder to see how an international organization can be a state actor than one confined to the U.S. (and the argument that USADA is a state actor is already difficult enough). Also should be pointed out that even if somehow they got the state actor argument to stick, it wouldn't dismiss USADA's case. It would just mean that USADA might have to allow LA certain things--depose witnesses, cross-examination, more evidence in general, along with a burden of proof that might rise to beyond a reasonable doubt--that are not in force for a non-actor.

Edit: Doesn't this ruling by itself hurt the state actor claim, though? The ruling makes it clear that USADA is simply a branch of WADA acting in the U.S. If it were not, it would not have the authority to sanction foreigners working in other nations. To the extent that USADA is just part of WADA, you can't make the claim that it's a state actor.
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Merckx index said:
Now all they have to do is enforce the actions against LA, and this whole jurisdiction claim he made in the complaint collapses. In fact, he may have handed USADA the rope to hang him, because the complaint goes on and on about how UCI has the authority to sanction LA. If they support USADA's action, LA's lawyers have given the jurisdiction argument to USADA, gift-wrapped.

They will then have to argue that UCI is a state actor, but much harder to see how an international organization can be a state actor than one confined to the U.S. (and the argument that USADA is a state actor is already difficult enough). Also should be pointed out that even if somehow they got the state actor argument to stick, it wouldn't dismiss USADA's case. It would just mean that USADA might have to allow LA certain things--depose witnesses, cross-examination, more evidence in general, along with a burden of proof that might rise to beyond a reasonable doubt--that are not in force for a non-actor.
Good point, and one that didn't escape notice as I read their pleading. UCI, meanwhile, will have a tough time trying to not support the USADA action. They pretty much have to support it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY