ChewbaccaD said:
You are the most devious, insipid kind of convert. You are professing disdain for Armstrong and Bruyneel. You time and again try to hold out your anti-doping street cred. Then you use the "kangaroo court" argument. It has become abundantly clear that you are merely a fanboy looking for an out. You were on your chair screaming at the top of your lungs every year Armstrong rode the tour. In those years, and the years he didn't ride, you were the defender. Somewhere, on some forum, you were pushing the fanboy line with vigor and vitriol. (maybe even here under another name, but I won't tell...) Sure you're possibly a new guy here, but I bet $1 million that your keyboard's "n" "e" "v" "r" "t" "s" "d" "p" "o" "i" "v" keys are shiny from use, practically glowing I bet. So please, spare us the charade. If there were some legal maneuver that would end all of this in Armstrong's favor, or some legal body who could come in and overrule what has happened, you'd be here defending that or them with all the gusto you defended Armstrong in the past. Quit pretending your posts and true beliefs are not transparent. It is the most insulting part of your shtick.
Go get on your Madone and go for a ride and spare us any further ruminations on this issue. Please.
Chewbacca - play the ball not the man.
My disdain for the legal process in sport and the petty fiefdoms that fight for control of it, who rarely agree on even sport legal issues (take UCI arguments with USADA and UCI suing WADA!) has nothing to do with Armstrong at all!
I have said many many times.
Armstrong deserves a lifetime ban for intimidation. regardless of anything else.
As to where my dislike of sport injustice stems: It started a decade ago, and nothing has changed to make me reconsider.
I have said it in the past, for those who were reading. I knew a lot of top athletes and was involved in athletics event organisation. It was a real eye opener for me when someone I knew was (wrongly) accused of drug taking - a fact later admitted ( in small print of course) years after.
Yet the process destroyed her, bankrupted her, destroyed her career , never to start again, blacklisted her husband from sports promotion, fundamentally the war was conducted in media by "selective" statements from federation to press. The arcane nature of the bodies involved and the impossibility of determining even jurisdiction cost hundreds of thousands to even fight. And there was no justice for her in the end. A half hearted apology a decade later is simply not good enough
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN KEPT CONFIDENTIAL - not allowed the federation to assassinate in public before the end of the last appeal. UCI rules say as much for cycling.
Nothing has changed in as far as I can see.
It was shameful what they did to Rasmussen, and there was no legal underpinning for it. He should not have had to do two sets of tests just because of being a Dane, and two of his "warnings" were for the same period one UCI, one Danish - so was declared guilty twice for the same offence! - I forget the latin phrase for that principle.. The first missed test was clearly not lawful issued as a recorded decision, without any opportunity for explanation. They destroyed him in media first.
And have blacklisted him ever since.
It was disgraceful how Contador was judged initially lightly because of spanish involvement, and the fact that Ashenden could not even present evidence of plasticisers in his blood - demonstrating transfusions -speaks volumes for the injustice..
The justice system does not work, and I have been saying that for the last ten years.
So this is the latest in a long line.
Tygart should not have put any of the evidence in public domain until all actions were completed and done. He has clearly prejudiced Bruyneel.
Worse still the reasoned decision is not reasoned at all. Equity demands that the evidence is examined and tested, not just presented. In which case how did the Hincapie flat clearance ever even make it into the document? you are a student of law. You know it has no justification to be there!
The only difference between career dopers Leipheimer, Hincapie, and Hamiltion is that the first two were better at cheating, so they get away with less sanction. Is that what we really want to reward?
The right of USADA to pursue lance does not excuse bad practise.
The charging letter was a sham, and for Sparks to remark he "doubted Lance could get a fair hearing" was a damning indictment of the rest. The argument with USADA and UCI inevitable because of the lack of clarity.
In the case of Bruyneel they have clearly prejudiced a fair hearing, and as for the "reasoned decision" - the difference between a prosecution stitch up and a reasoned decision is testing and balancing not in evidence at all in that document.
And so on.
My campaign is that one of the things that needs to be changed for cycling to have any credibililty left is to create a body independent of UCI and the federations that takes evidence from all sources, and determines sanction after hearing any defence case. Leaving Tygart to prosecute, and CAS as appeal. That way we may begin to see justice. It would certainly have helped the athlete I knew, and Rasmussen, although it is too late for both of those.
THAT IS WHAT I AM CAMPAIGNING FOR - A justice system independent of all these private fiefdoms - so the danes can no longer stitch up rasmussen, and the spanish cannot featherbed contador.
And that is all.
I am not an Armstrong apologist. Lifetime ban for intimidation is justifiable.
But equity is involved too.
If Riis still has a TdF title despite admitting doping, Lance should keep his too.
Both or neither. Cancelling one and not the other is clearly injustice.
In Bruyneels case however - as Jaksche points out - all of the (six) teams he was involved with had doping programs, so will it help the sport to scapegoat just Briyneel? Jaskche does not think so - he has warned against assuming it is a one team problem very recently. That is what UCI has always done. Spit out a scapegoat once in a while, then say "the rest are clean" HAH!
And that document should not be in the public domain until Bruyneels case is completed.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram