Official lance armstrong thread, part 2 (from september 2012)

Jun 15, 2009
8,530
1
0
I would go into that back and forth battle. I just don´t know how to do it. But i guess some of the 12 apostels will do the work?!
 
USADA vs. UCI. Subject: Results management.

The USADA is obviously asserting a right to change the results of past cycling races, but on August 3rd McQuaid sent a letter from the UCI to the USADA that states, if I'm reading it correctly, that the USADA does not have the right to change results without UCI's consent.

How is this issue up in the air? How is it that what governing bodies in sport have the right to change past race results is not crystal clear to all parties involved? Now the headlines everywhere say that Armstrong has been stripped of all results since 1998 as though it's a done deal, but as far as I can tell the UCI's position is "you can't do that".

Per an article at ESPN, WADA president Fahey, after saying that the USADA has the right to impose penalties: "When asked whether USADA had the authority to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles, Fahey replied: "Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA."

Here's one of the few articles I foundthat gives much print to this dispute. Even it starts off by stating that his results have been stripped. Strange indeed that the UCI doesn't seem to agree with that statement. What next?
 
Jul 12, 2012
649
0
0
"USADA has no authority to proceed in this matter for all of the reasons we have set out in our previous pleadings, correspondence and my presentation in Federal Court."

Was he not present for Judge Spark's decision? At the very least, he should have read it.
 
BroDeal said:
Keep editing. Eventually Wikipedia will lock the page to prevent defacement.
Yes, because having a wikipedia editing fight is so useful. :rolleyes:

Referring to my prior post, it looks like the UCI disputes the USADA's claimed right to change the race results. I'm not sure what happens now.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
i have not seen a single article nor a post discussing subtle but quite significant differences between the charging letter and today’s sanction statement. Was that the beginning of starting to feed more information ?

The evidence against Lance Armstrong arose from disclosures made to USADA by more than a dozen witnesses
It used to be ‘more than ten’. So we have a gain of at least 2 witnesses.

Otherwise, the sanctioning statement is almost identical to the charging letter except the aggravating circumstances were spelled out more explicitly.
 
python said:
i have not seen a single article nor a post discussing subtle but quite significant differences between the charging letter and today’s sanction statement. Was that the beginning of starting to feed more information ?


It used to be ‘more than ten’. So we have a gain of at least 2 witnesses.

Otherwise, the sanctioning statement is almost identical to the charging letter except the aggravating circumstances were spelled out more explicitly.
No. It used to be at least ten riders plus several staff and others.
 
python said:
i have not seen a single article nor a post discussing subtle but quite significant differences between the charging letter and today’s sanction statement. Was that the beginning of starting to feed more information ?


It used to be ‘more than ten’. So we have a gain of at least 2 witnesses.

Otherwise, the sanctioning statement is almost identical to the charging letter except the aggravating circumstances were spelled out more explicitly.
The charging letter says, "more than ten cyclists as well as cycling team employees." While ambiguous, this could be interpreted as meaning that the cycling team employees, at least two, are in addition to the ten cyclists. So I don't think there is a discrepancy.

If Herman's "notice" was just bluster, it's further evidence of his incompetence. You don't have to be a lawyer to know you don't make threats you can't and won't fulfill. Before I sympathized with QS, who insisted LA's lawyers are not idiots. If Herman has no intention, and indeed no means, of holding USADA liable for publicly announcing LA's sanctions, then he is an idiot.

only the very loyal or the very gullible would be persuaded by Armstrong's self-serving rant against the USADA, which he accuses of engaging in a "witch hunt" against him.
According to my few sources in the U.S. cycling community, there's hardly a wet eye today among top U.S. racers, who have long been turned off by Armstrong's perceived arrogance.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-armstrong-doping-20120824,0,5765006.story

Not everyone in the press is gushing over LA.
 
Merckx index said:
The charging letter says, "more than ten cyclists as well as cycling team employees." While ambiguous, this could be interpreted as meaning that the cycling team employees, at least two, are in addition to the ten cyclists. So I don't think there is a discrepancy.

If Herman's "notice" was just bluster, it's further evidence of his incompetence. You don't have to be a lawyer to know you don't make threats you can't and won't fulfill. Before I sympathized with QS, who insisted LA's lawyers are not idiots. If Herman has no intention, and indeed no means, of holding USADA liable for publicly announcing LA's sanctions, then he is an idiot.
There may be something to what QS has written about the USADA being hamstrung about what it can release. My take on the warning is that it sounds like a warning against libel or leaked information that could damage Armstrong's reputation and finances. Or maybe Armstrong's lawyers are waiting for an infraction of the rules so they can use a suit to further depict the USADA as a rogue agency.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Merckx index said:
The charging letter says, "more than ten cyclists as well as cycling team employees." While ambiguous, this could be interpreted as meaning that the cycling team employees, at least two, are in addition to the ten cyclists. So I don't think there is a discrepancy.

If Herman's "notice" was just bluster, it's further evidence of his incompetence. You don't have to be a lawyer to know you don't make threats you can't and won't fulfill. Before I sympathized with QS, who insisted LA's lawyers are not idiots. If Herman has no intention, and indeed no means, of holding USADA liable for publicly announcing LA's sanctions, then he is an idiot.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-armstrong-doping-20120824,0,5765006.story

If Alpe hasn't found anything but pro-LA articles, he hasn't looked very hard.
Herman is an idiot. Are they going to sue all these papers declaring Lance is a cheat and doper now?

Threatening USADA but letting all this editorials to go by unchallenged.

Herman probably wrote what he was told to write and threaten who he was told to threaten.

Not a good day at the LieStrong ranch. Bet people have been avoiding a certain person.
 
patrick767 said:
USADA vs. UCI. Subject: Results management.

The USADA is obviously asserting a right to change the results of past cycling races, but on August 3rd McQuaid sent a letter from the UCI to the USADA that states, if I'm reading it correctly, that the USADA does not have the right to change results without UCI's consent.

How is this issue up in the air? How is it that what governing bodies in sport have the right to change past race results is not crystal clear to all parties involved? Now the headlines everywhere say that Armstrong has been stripped of all results since 1998 as though it's a done deal, but as far as I can tell the UCI's position is "you can't do that".

Per an article at ESPN, WADA president Fahey, after saying that the USADA has the right to impose penalties: "When asked whether USADA had the authority to strip Armstrong of his Tour de France titles, Fahey replied: "Olympic medals and titles are for other agencies to decide, not WADA."

Here's one of the few articles I foundthat gives much print to this dispute. Even it starts off by stating that his results have been stripped. Strange indeed that the UCI doesn't seem to agree with that statement. What next?
This story will be forgotten in 2 weeks max. How can they ban a retired cyclist? It's totally absurd. The UCI, if they have any sense, will simply shut up about this and rely on European anti-Americanism to carry the day i.e. "Armstrong is our misundertood hero a prophet not accepted in his own county ...".

Heck, If the banks can get away with theft and fraud for years than Armstrong will have no problems with his racket. Nowadays, most people are too busy watching X-Factor or the football to care.
 
buckle said:
This story will be forgotten in 2 weeks max. How can they ban a retired cyclist? ".
It won't be forgotten because this is the tip of the metaphorical iceberg. The scope and scale of the sporting fraud should take weeks, if not months to come out.

What he's specifically banned from going forward is participating in any sport federation that has agreed to use WADA's anti-doping code. That means no triathlon appearance fees.

They have wiped all of his historic results from some date 199x forward.
 
Jul 17, 2009
406
0
0
Turner29 said:
"USADA has no authority to proceed in this matter for all of the reasons we have set out in our previous pleadings, correspondence and my presentation in Federal Court."

Was he not present for Judge Spark's decision? At the very least, he should have read it.
Do you even understand what Judge Sparks was making a decision on?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
buckle said:
This story will be forgotten in 2 weeks max. How can they ban a retired cyclist? It's totally absurd. The UCI, if they have any sense, will simply shut up about this and rely on European anti-Americanism to carry the day i.e. "Armstrong is our misundertood hero a prophet not accepted in his own county ...".

Heck, If the banks can get away with theft and fraud for years than Armstrong will have no problems with his racket. Nowadays, most people are too busy watching X-Factor or the football to care.
This is only the begininng.

Sit back and enjoy.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
buckle said:
This story will be forgotten in 2 weeks max. How can they ban a retired cyclist? It's totally absurd.
Wasn't he planning on doing a little something over in Hawaii? Professionally?
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
python said:
i have not seen a single article nor a post discussing subtle but quite significant differences between the charging letter and today’s sanction statement. Was that the beginning of starting to feed more information ?


It used to be ‘more than ten’. So we have a gain of at least 2 witnesses.

Otherwise, the sanctioning statement is almost identical to the charging letter except the aggravating circumstances were spelled out more explicitly.
It was always more than a dozen. The original charging letter stated more than 10 cyclists, and well as team employees. The minimum number of witnesses is 13 altogether.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
N The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS