Political influence to protect dopers

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
While I have the same questions as you do, I think the quoted part above can be explained pretty easily. USADA is not a law enforcement agency. They cannot charge anyone with a crime. As such a law enforcement agency passing around possible trial evidence probably violates some standards.

Ideally, another jurisdiction picks up the ball. But if a Clinton is watching over the case, then probably not...
We signed the UNESCO treaty. They are supposed to share non-Grand Jury evidence. They have in the past (BALCO, Marion Jones)
 
Lukenwolf said:
I wonder why nobody goes for Birotte's throat. He had the power to subpoena the guys, but USADA got their testimonies without being able to do so. Birotte is so corrupt, he makes a 3rd world dictator look like Gandhi. They should also oust all those Senators and Congressmen who had been bought by BribeStrong. This makes the worlds 'greatest country' look like the Federal Banana Republic Of Americaland.
Do you really think this was Birotte's call? Its not how the system works here, this call came from above.
 
Oct 12, 2012
169
0
0
JRTinMA said:
Do you really think this was Birotte's call? Its not how the system works here, this call came from above.
Yes, but if you want to get those, who pressured him into dropping the case for which he has pretty damning evidence, which sounds quite anlawful to me btw., we must start somewhere, don't we? I mean the guys who brought down Nixon didn't exactly start their research at the Oval office, did they? And in a nation, where a corrupt president can be taken down by skilled investigate journalists, it should be possible to find out, who pressured Birotte into that shady action. And by the way, he still had the chance to refuse to being pressured. Yes it would have cost him his job and career, but everyone has the choice to cave in or leave his self-respect intact.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Race Radio said:
it appears these lawmakers are unaware that a Federal Judge ruled that the WADA code gives Armstrong ample due process.
No I dispute that. Sparks essential comment was it was a civil process which Armstrong had voluntarily agreed to enter, so that providing they stuck to the rules he was powerless to intervene until and if Armstrong had exhausted the process and could demonstrate they had not followed their obligations as laid down in their rulebooks, and that those failures had infringed his rights.

(eg if WADA failed to exercise statute of limitations per rule book. and Armstrong appealed that in CAS and failed, then he could return to Sparks or similar court to prove that. Same as Heras challenged on a different matter in spain for example)


He did not say the process was good or ample, indeed, he slammed the charging letter, and expressed some distaste over the process, actually commenting on possible wrong motivations by USADA for pursuing it, and criticised the apparently indeterminate jurisdictions, but as judgement he did not consider he had the right or power to intervene in a civil matter until and if the process so defined had been exhausted and Armstrong could prove in hindsight that as a result his rights had been infringed.

In essence he was stating his court becomes the court of last resort, not the first - since only then in hindsight could anyone determine whether that process had actually infringed armstrongs rights. Sparks certainly did not give the process a clean bill of health, or vouch for it.
 
Microchip said:
He knew when Levi testified; he knew that Frankie was in the car with Kerry. Doesn't he have a life??! Seems like all he does is follow people around.
When you create a web of lies to the extent that Lance did, you have to spend significant energy and resources covering your ***.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Microchip said:
Not a peep out of Lance's lawyers. They're very quiet.
I suspect there is so much paper they cannot reach for a phone, the computer or even the door.

They are lterally buried in paper work! Of the "pay or else" description.

I still wonder whether they will appeal the UCI decision on the limited grounds of the SOL - WADA seem intent on closing that loophole, which proves even WADA think it is real and significant. UCI certainly said they thought it was valid, and USADA reasoning was wrong.

Could save the man a lot of grief with such as SCA if he keeps the titles like Riis
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
mountainrman said:
Armstrong obfuscation!.
We have heard this BS argument all during Judge Sparks hearing. Fanboys failed by the dozen trying to convince the clinic that Armstrong was being witch hunted by USADA.

Dont waste the clinics time again with this BS!
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Bennotti rewrites history
What you are calling BS is what Sparks actually said - read the judgement - as summarized in my post - not the wishful thinking of anti Armstrong posters.

Sparks did not call the process good, he said Armstrong had signed up to it, socould not claimed it infringed his rights until and if he exhausted it and could then prove it had in hindsight infringed his rights.

Sparks commented on both inadequate as[ects of it, and of possible improper motivation for purusing it (which is strong stuff in normally understated judgements) . Still he was powerless to intervene. UCI also stated they were not impressed either, and criticised a number of aspects.

Until the sport gets the legal stuff and organizational stuff right reshaping UCI and USADA it does not have a hope of challenging doping.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
mountainrman said:
Obfuscation
Sparks said he was not an expert in the process. This was only reinforced when he bought some of Armstrong's lies about the process. Sparks confusion over the WADA code does not mean Armstrong's claims are valid. Sparks is a Fed Judge, there is no reason he should have an deep understanding of the code

Regardless, it had zero to do with the case which was about SMJ. Sparks is an expert in that and he ruled correctly.

Continue with your silly games
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,868
0
0
Excellent article by Roberts. Round of applause to USADA, and shame on the people who claimed this investigation was a witch hunt to net Travis Tygart a big fish. He took a risk on this and his team must've hopped over many deep pits with pointy spikes to put together such a great case.
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,868
0
0
BroDeal said:
Armstrong threatening the Democrats, Obama, and Kerry is astonishing. What a sense of entitlement and feeling of self-importance this guy had. Armstrong is a megalomaniac. His hubris knew no bounds.
Indeed.

Thanks to McCain for backing USADA a few months ago, when he was probably being pushed to go the other way, and had even spoken at the Lobbytrong summit in 2008.

Has Roberts' article been published on any major news sites or linked to from anywhere important? Roopstigo.com seems pretty obscure.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
mountainrman said:
What you are calling BS is what Sparks actually said - read the judgement - as summarized in my post - not the wishful thinking of anti Armstrong posters.

Sparks did not call the process good, he said Armstrong had signed up to it, socould not claimed it infringed his rights until and if he exhausted it and could then prove it had in hindsight infringed his rights.

Sparks commented on both inadequate as[ects of it, and of possible improper motivation for purusing it (which is strong stuff in normally understated judgements) . Still he was powerless to intervene. UCI also stated they were not impressed either, and criticised a number of aspects.

Until the sport gets the legal stuff and organizational stuff right reshaping UCI and USADA it does not have a hope of challenging doping.
Can the moderators please check this poster's IP address. Thanks.
 
Sep 4, 2012
250
0
0
mountainrman said:
Until the sport gets the legal stuff and organizational stuff right reshaping UCI and USADA it does not have a hope of challenging doping.
Unusual to see a call for reshaping USADA in this forum. What did you have in mind?
 
Jun 9, 2009
140
0
0
BroDeal said:
Armstrong threatening the Democrats, Obama, and Kerry is astonishing. What a sense of entitlement and feeling of self-importance this guy had. Armstrong is a megalomaniac. His hubris knew no bounds.
Threatening and bribing high-ranking government officials and corporate executives (and probably organized crime figures if you can tell them apart). He has no idea about the people he's dealing with and what happens when you cross them. I am more convinced than ever that he will not survive this.
 
May 25, 2011
153
0
0
So the call came from Clinton? I suspected Obama, but close enough. I would really hate Romney to win this election, but wouldn't it be absolutely perfect timing for the Republicans if the corruption in the Birotte case came out right now? If it does happen, I don't mean to blow my own trumpet, but did I predict this happening a few months back? :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY