Ferrari:There's No Evidence I Doped

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
mountainrman said:
I am simply reporting what Ferrari said. Suggest you listen to the interview which includes mention of court action against USADA

Nothing to do with " WADA code"
We have the link, why do you need to report it? oh i forgot that's what you do here, take the side of the dopers, doping docs and doping DSs.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
mountainrman said:
In the interview he does not appear to be trying to pick legal nits, or carefully choosing words as suggested above.

He says several times in a variety of ways "nothing to do with doping"

He also says they are considering US legal action against USADA which could prove interesting if it is happens and is more than an empty threat.

I do not know whether doctors who attach to riding teams have UCI "approval" or enter into an agreement with UCI or other federations? , I have not heard of such agreements. The "teeth" that USADA have over riders stems from their license agreements with federations and carries the obligation to use arbitration and USADA process.

If Ferrari has no cycling "license" he is free to use the US courts to attack USADA using all available legislation such as defamation, restraint of trade etc etc. which will demand normal evidential standards.

It is not the first time an athlete has gone against federations in open court - years ago Butch Reynolds took the US federation all the way to supreme court and won. In cycling Heras has done so and won in spain.

It will make for interesting times if Ferrari does it.
yes I can see the restraint of trade one going well alright.

"yes my patients all took epo but I didnt give it to them and certainly never talked about it to them, its all a coincidence your honour I swear.Just because they all did it doesnt mean I had anything to do with it Its defamation I never told them too,their adults I just talked about my time trial skills up mountains.......what your honour...oh yes I did do it pretty fast,...no no your honour I never gave epo to myself nor did I talk about it to myself.......whats that ? Why did I meet Lance in campervans in secret.....why to give him the bill for fixing his bunions......yes your honour they were million dollar bunions, you dont realise how important that is for a super human like Lance.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
mountainrman said:
It is not the first time an athlete has gone against federations in open court - years ago Butch Reynolds took the US federation all the way to supreme court and won. .
Do you actually believe this crap or just write it to get a response and clog up the forum?
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Race Radio said:
Do you actually believe this crap or just write it to get a response and clog up the forum?
Race radio. I commented on information with information - that is Ferrari did not appear to be using clever forms of words to sidestep questions as suggested by another poste

He may have been lying through his teeth - but he said "no involvement with doping" in various ways, also that he was actively examining court action against USADA - he said "court action" not "arbitration" which should interest observers of this process, and so it is worth considering why he said "court". It has also been done - that is Heras took the federation through spanish courts rather than cyclings own processes, and I believe the hold cycling has over doctors is weaker than it is over riders who are obliged to use arbitration first.

I think it unlikely he will, and certainly not until the italian investigations have concluded. The suggestion he might is interesting none the less. Why say it if he is not considering it?

What clogs up the forum is ad hominem posts devoid of content such as yours above.

[BTW - Butch Reynolds won huge damages against the US federation and rightly so. What the US supreme ruled on was a matter of jurisdiction, not his rightness of claim or entitlement to it. In short telling him he had to go after the international federation instead: I have said before one reason international sporting authorities such as IAAF, UCI, FIFA all hide in places like monaco and switzerland, and want local federations to declare sanctions in first instance, is so that the assets are protected from actions by athletes and to make legal challenge difficult when they get it wrong -by deliberately muddying the waters of jurisdiction - as they did in the Diane Modahl case and in that case it bankrupted the federation.
The main takeaway from both of those, is doping "justice" is far from flawless]
 
The thing to do when your statements have been clearly shown to be factually incorrect is to admit it and move on. Please do not continue to pile more misinformation on the heap attempt to confuse the issue.

The topic is Ferrari. Thanks.
 
From wikipedia:

That same year Reynolds also won a libel suit against the IAAF, and was awarded $27.3 million in damages. The IAAF stated that the ruling, made in Ohio, had no bearing upon the organisation and was invalid. A federal appeals panel later overturned the verdict on jurisdictional grounds.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
red_flanders said:
The thing to do when your statements have been clearly shown to be factually incorrect is to admit it and move on. Please do not continue to pile more misinformation on the heap attempt to confuse the issue.

The topic is Ferrari. Thanks.
The point at issue is whether Ferrari can bring an action against USADA - which he claims he is considering - and that is a fact.

The statement I made on Reynolds was incorrect but only on a point of detail - irrelevant to the thread.

I cited the reynolds case as proven example I knew that you can win vindication in a sport case in a US court on the basis of evidence despite sport having declared you guilty. Which he did, in a court in Ohio. So it is true. And also heras in spain. The point I was trying to make was that Reynolds won the case on whether he had been defamed, despite having lost in sport hearings and been sanctioned by sport.

The fact that Reynolds was later overturned on appeal on jurisdictional grounds not veracity of argument is largely irrelevant to this. USADA are in the US. They cannot use the IAAF "we are not in the US argument" used in the Reynolds case.

I knew he had never got a penny which is why I am critical of UCI, IAAF, FIFA etc hiding in jurisdictions to avoid litigation. Also out of interest, in the aftermath of that case it was widely recognised that it was far easier for a non US claimant to take action against a US corporation, that it is the reverse as the Reynolds case , and is why the Reynolds case itself was considered in subsequent attempts to redraft the "Hague convention on international civil enforcement." So it was clearly considered a miscarriage of justice, when used as an argument to change international conventions.

Back to the issue at hand. Ferrari says he is "not guilty of involvement in doping" and is considering action against USADA

That should be of interest to the clinic.

I doubt he will certainly until the Italian investigations are over,
 
trust

mountainrman said:
Back to the issue at hand. Ferrari says he is "not guilty of involvement in doping" and is considering action against USADA
but do you believe this claim by ferrari? evidence of large payments from

and dodgy secret meetings with lance in his camper van makes me doubt

that ferrari is honest

it seems all bluster...............that he wants to appear like an honest doctor

while the truth is he does whatever possible to make max $
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
mountainrman said:
The point at issue is whether Ferrari can bring an action against USADA - which he claims he is considering - and that is a fact.

The statement I made on Reynolds was incorrect but only on a point of detail - irrelevant to the thread.

I cited the reynolds case as proven example I knew that you can win vindication in a sport case in a US court on the basis of evidence despite sport having declared you guilty. Which he did, in a court in Ohio. So it is true. And also heras in spain. The point I was trying to make was that Reynolds won the case on whether he had been defamed, despite having lost in sport hearings and been sanctioned by sport.

The fact that Reynolds was later overturned on appeal on jurisdictional grounds not veracity of argument is largely irrelevant to this. USADA are in the US. They cannot use the IAAF "we are not in the US argument" used in the Reynolds case.

I knew he had never got a penny which is why I am critical of UCI, IAAF, FIFA etc hiding in jurisdictions to avoid litigation. Also out of interest, in the aftermath of that case it was widely recognised that it was far easier for a non US claimant to take action against a US corporation, that it is the reverse as the Reynolds case , and is why the Reynolds case itself was considered in subsequent attempts to redraft the "Hague convention on international civil enforcement." So it was clearly considered a miscarriage of justice, when used as an argument to change international conventions.

Back to the issue at hand. Ferrari says he is "not guilty of involvement in doping" and is considering action against USADA

That should be of interest to the clinic.

I doubt he will certainly until the Italian investigations are over,
You might want to dial it back a bit. The trolling is too obvious.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
mountainrman said:
[BTW - Butch Reynolds won huge damages against the US federation and rightly so. What the US supreme ruled on was a matter of jurisdiction, not his rightness of claim or entitlement to it. In short telling him he had to go after the international federation instead: I have said before one reason international sporting authorities such as IAAF, UCI, FIFA all hide in places like monaco and switzerland, and want local federations to declare sanctions in first instance, is so that the assets are protected from actions by athletes and to make legal challenge difficult when they get it wrong -by deliberately muddying the waters of jurisdiction - as they did in the Diane Modahl case and in that case it bankrupted the federation.
The main takeaway from both of those, is doping "justice" is far from flawless]
mountainrman said:
The statement I made on Reynolds was incorrect but only on a point of detail - irrelevant to the thread.

I knew he had never got a penny which is why I am critical of UCI, IAAF, FIFA etc hiding in jurisdictions to avoid litigation. Also out of interest, in the aftermath of that case it was widely recognised that it was far easier for a non US claimant to take action against a US corporation, that it is the reverse as the Reynolds case , and is why the Reynolds case itself was considered in subsequent attempts to redraft the "Hague convention on international civil enforcement." So it was clearly considered a miscarriage of justice, when used as an argument to change international conventions.
Great way to earn some respect from others.:rolleyes:
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
ebandit said:
but do you believe this claim by ferrari? evidence of large payments from

and dodgy secret meetings with lance in his camper van makes me doubt

that ferrari is honest

it seems all bluster...............that he wants to appear like an honest doctor

while the truth is he does whatever possible to make max $
No I do not believe Ferrari - but there is little point in saying he is considering action if he is not, and he actually says that all of the riders who named him were not actually clients of his which raises an interesting question mark as to how he may challenge.

I am going to read the affidavits which Tygart referenced. The first mentioned illustrates a lack of clarity and maybe that is the weapon ferrari would use. The first mentioned in the RD which is Vandevelde's. Who says "I understood what lance meant was to get with Ferraris doping program". Not exactly a slamdunk. Let us see what more there is..

So whilst I doubt it will happen, I doubt if he would dare, such a case would be interesting.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
spetsa said:
Great way to earn some respect from others.:rolleyes:
Hard to see what your post even means.

I can only say again - the kind of action it sounds like Ferrari was considering against USADA when he said it the interview is perhaps a loss of earnings or defamation case - so it is interesting to note whether such a case has been won as a result of challenging a sporting decision in the US courts.

And the answer is it has. I raised the Reynolds case from memory because I knew he had done just that in the past: and on evidential grounds he won huge damages. Which is true.

I also knew and have said on other threads long ago he never got a penny - because sports jurisdiction is a real problem and jurisdiction not lack of claim is how IAAF managed to avoid paying in the Reynolds case. That too is perfectly true and will not be a problem for Ferrari because USADA are in the US!

The truth might well be against ferrari of course.. I thought it interesting he had even considered it.

So what point are you trying to make?
 
Oct 14, 2012
63
0
0
86TDFWinner said:
I believe if you go back in the thread, you'll see that Ferrari cant sue USADA. Go back and give a looksy.
sorry, I cant seem to find the legal opinion/precedence which prevents Ferrari from filing suit. Could you please point out said item? (note this wold exclude an anonymous internet poster's opinion of what may or may not be doable under the relevant jurisdiction?)
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
86TDFWinner said:
I believe if you go back in the thread, you'll see that Ferrari cant sue USADA. Go back and give a looksy.
Missed it. Thanks will go look. Any idea where?

[Update just found this..] posted by someone earlier

"He has foregone any prospective claim against USADA by passing on arbitration.

UCI/WADA rules made it clear and unambiguous that a non licensed person involved in the preparation and support of a licensed rider is subject to the rules as a licensed person (UCI Rule 18).

If Armstrong with his battery of high powered lawyers could not fault the USADA process then Ferrari is just p.ss.ng in the wind."

The problem with that is as far as I know there is no contract binding an unlicensed person to follow the code : so whilst LA for example is bound by contract to go through the "sporting route"
It is hard to see what would stop ferrari, so it is hard to see how USADA lawyers could get it dismissed in court on that basis. The code can only be enforced against those who have signed up to it directly or indirectly.

Other than the truth that is, which seems a powerful bar to it happening!

I have not read them but the two italian rider affidavits mentioned by USADA given as part of the italian investigation apparently demonstrate Ferrari connections to doping.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
mountainrman said:
Missed it. Thanks will go look. Any idea where?

[Update just found this..] posted by someone earlier

"He has foregone any prospective claim against USADA by passing on arbitration.

UCI/WADA rules made it clear and unambiguous that a non licensed person involved in the preparation and support of a licensed rider is subject to the rules as a licensed person (UCI Rule 18).

If Armstrong with his battery of high powered lawyers could not fault the USADA process then Ferrari is just p.ss.ng in the wind."

The problem with that is as far as I know there is no contract binding an unlicensed person to follow the code : so whilst LA for example is bound by contract to go through the "sporting route"
It is hard to see what would stop ferrari, so it is hard to see how USADA lawyers could get it dismissed in court on that basis. The code can only be enforced against those who have signed up to it directly or indirectly.

Other than the truth that is, which seems a powerful bar to it happening!

I have not read them but the two italian rider affidavits mentioned by USADA given as part of the italian investigation apparently demonstrate Ferrari connections to doping.

We went through this two pages ago and you are back to the same crap. USADA wrote a response that was based on rider testimony. If Ferrari is upset, he can try to sue them. If any claims were made up in the form of lies, they came from the riders themselves, not the USADA.

NOW STOP YOUR BS, AND MOVE ON.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
mountainrman said:
Hard to see what your post even means.
Pretty clear

You posted nonsense. It was shown to you clearly that it was nonsense, you even admitted it was nonsense.....but you posted the same nonsense 2 more times in an attempt to clog the thread with nonsense

Good work
 
Aug 21, 2012
138
0
0
Race Radio said:
Pretty clear

You posted nonsense. It was shown to you clearly that it was nonsense, you even admitted it was nonsense.....but you posted the same nonsense 2 more times in an attempt to clog the thread with nonsense

Good work
Holiday bonuses for increased post volume this year. The interns get extra chances to sniff the chamois.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
mountainrman said:
The point at issue is whether Ferrari can bring an action against USADA - which he claims he is considering - and that is a fact.

The statement I made on Reynolds was incorrect but only on a point of detail - irrelevant to the thread.

I cited the reynolds case as proven example I knew that you can win vindication in a sport case in a US court on the basis of evidence despite sport having declared you guilty. Which he did, in a court in Ohio. So it is true. And also heras in spain. The point I was trying to make was that Reynolds won the case on whether he had been defamed, despite having lost in sport hearings and been sanctioned by sport.

The fact that Reynolds was later overturned on appeal on jurisdictional grounds not veracity of argument is largely irrelevant to this. USADA are in the US. They cannot use the IAAF "we are not in the US argument" used in the Reynolds case.

I knew he had never got a penny which is why I am critical of UCI, IAAF, FIFA etc hiding in jurisdictions to avoid litigation. Also out of interest, in the aftermath of that case it was widely recognised that it was far easier for a non US claimant to take action against a US corporation, that it is the reverse as the Reynolds case , and is why the Reynolds case itself was considered in subsequent attempts to redraft the "Hague convention on international civil enforcement." So it was clearly considered a miscarriage of justice, when used as an argument to change international conventions.

Back to the issue at hand. Ferrari says he is "not guilty of involvement in doping" and is considering action against USADA

That should be of interest to the clinic.

I doubt he will certainly until the Italian investigations are over,
The part in bold - links please.
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Have there been any public statements in regards to when we may expect some finality in regards to Dr. Ferrari's Italian court preceedings? I know that there have been references to jail time by some, but is that really a possibility given the nature of the Italian system?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
While I have no idea what has been going on back and forth here for a couple of pages one thing I need to ask.

Why would this Ferrari fool not be able to file a suite against USADA? Certainly since he is a foreigner to the USA that would make it more difficult but not impossible?
 
Aug 3, 2010
843
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
While I have no idea what has been going on back and forth here for a couple of pages one thing I need to ask.

Why would this Ferrari fool not be able to file a suite against USADA? Certainly since he is a foreigner to the USA that would make it more difficult but not impossible?
Not try to be condescending here, but this has been brought up a couple of times. My unlawyerly guess would be the fact that the USADA did not make the claims that he would have to argue as being false. The riders in question did. Maybe he could try to sue them.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts