The fun begins - SCA now asking for money back...

[Dr. Maserati]

True on Ashenden, but the point I made is valid. Without access to data, he is blind.

On Bruyneel I am questioning not whether they can , but whether they shuould - I think there should be a single independent sanctioning body, with country federations acting as prosecutors only. For reasons stated many times above.

On Armstrong, I have said it many times.I think he should be sanctioned for life for the intimidation of others who spoke out..

I am less convinced about the "coercion, aiding, abetting" alone resulting in life time ban, since as Jaksche said, all the teams he was involved with (six) were doing same or similar things. Most of the riders were lending each other EPO from time to time, as in evidence given, o it is harder to find clear blue water between any of them. A number of them were doping before and after USPS so cannot state Armstrong was the cause . We only have Hincapies word that he quit in 2006, he certainly considered doping, he said so.. So the number eg Zabriskie - of those told to dope or quit as clean riders till then, were seemingly few and far between, and I suspect that was par for the course for all teams.. It was more an accepted culture.. Even the scale of it is not entirely clear because a number of riders have come forward saying they were unaware of it, so it was not as team wide as Tygart appears to state. I suspect Tygart new of riders who said they were unaware, so his presentation of information is certainly not even handed.

The problem with Tygarts presentation of it, is the focus to much on one man one team. Jaksche gives warnings about why that is not a good thing.

I will say it again. Armstrong should be kicked out for life (in my mind for intimidation) So I am not an apologist for him. My problem with the apparent lack of justice in cycling started long before this.

Very interesting I am sure - we should discuss this theory over several pages.............. but until that changes lets let USADA crack on with the process of bringing Bruyneel to arbitration as they are the agreed and accepted rules for now. Just like they were for Valverde.

 

[mountainrman]

OK I think I understand the point you are trying to make now. It would be just like me arguing that the US should abolish it's trial by jury system because I knew a person who was wrongfully imprisoned even though they were innocent.

Research it further and find:

"The term is sometimes used without any negative connotation. For example, many Major League Baseball teams have a kangaroo court to punish players for errors and other mistakes on the field, as well as for being late for a game or practice, not wearing proper attire to road games, or having a messy locker in the clubhouse. Fines are allotted, and at the end of the year, the money collected is given to charity. The organization may also use the money for a team party at the end of the season.[5]
In the sport of Rugby kangaroo court is held while rugby clubs are on tour to discipline players for actions committed both on and off the playing field. Fines and charges utilise alcohol and required acts as stated by the Judge presiding over the court. The player being charged has the ability to either utilize a court appointed defense or defend themselves but it rarely helps.[citation needed]"

Your analogy is clearly false. If you took the time and trouble to read why the legal side of sanctioning interests me, it is the long history of inequitable decisions emerging - long before this - a major factor in outcome seemingly the extent to which the local federation decides to either support or stitch up the athlete concerned. Cintrast the decisions on Rasmussen and Contador for evidence for example. That should not be.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

<snipped to point>

But I have long argued , way before Armstrong met his come uppance, that there should be a sanctioning body that operates outside the country federations to stop the Danes abusing Rasmussen for example. It should also be outside the reach of UCI to manipulate the outcome (because I think pretty much the same of UCI as Tygart does!) . And that and other crass decisions like Contador (not Armstrong apologist) is my reason for arguing this.

And an athlete I once knew who was destroyed by similar kangaroo coruts in athletics. Plus ca change...

As you only joined this month, what was your username back then?
I would like to read these "arguments".

 

[Zam_Olyas]

As you only joined this month, what was your username back then?
I would like to read these "arguments".

Doc, check this out.
http://www.flickr.com/

 

[mountainrman]

As you only joined this month, what was your username back then?
I would like to read these "arguments".

I was not posting on any cycling forums prior to the last month- I did not know there was a place that allowed open discussion of doping related issues. Only just found this place.

Play the ball not the man.
Take the danes actively trying to bring down Rasmussen, whilst the Spanish were trying to get Contador off. Surely you do not support that kind of partisan behaviour?

 

[mountainrman]

Very interesting I am sure - we should discuss this theory over several pages.............. but until that changes lets let USADA crack on with the process of bringing Bruyneel to arbitration as they are the agreed and accepted rules for now. Just like they were for Valverde.

Two different issues being confused here.

The sanctioning body, this case USADA which has occurred , whether or not should be in a better system.

The location of the CAS arbitration - for Valverde that was in Lausanne.
I am guessing Bruyneel would opt for Lausanne for a heap of reasons

Whilst I discovered CAS does have a New York court, the determination of who and how the CAS court is determined has yet to be declared.. Without the process occuring in the US tygarts arguments on the US precedents for SOL would have no relevance, and should have no relevance, since the law should be the same for all riders.

 

[Velodude]

Two different issues being confused here.

The sanctioning body, this case USADA which has occurred , whether or not should be in a better system.

The location of the CAS arbitration - for Valverde that was in Lausanne.
I am guessing Bruyneel would opt for Lausanne for a heap of reasons

Whilst I discovered CAS does have a New York court, the determination of who and how the CAS court is determined has yet to be declared.. Without the process occuring in the US tygarts arguments on the US precedents for SOL would have no relevance, and should have no relevance, since the law should be the same for all riders.

The CAS Appeals for Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis were convened on US soil respectively at Boulder, Co, (2005-2006) and New York (2008).

 

[Velodude]

I was not posting on any cycling forums prior to the last month- I did not know there was a place that allowed open discussion of doping related issues. Only just found this place.

Play the ball not the man.
Take the danes actively trying to bring down Rasmussen, whilst the Spanish were trying to get Contador off. Surely you do not support that kind of partisan behaviour?

You lack the ability to present a succinct argument. Coincidentally there was this poster who preceded you who likewise ......

 

[spetsa]

Chewbacca Return the issue I feel strongly about which has nothing to do with Armstrong at all.
Sanctions should be based on how long you doped! not on how long you got away with cheating.

Doping isn't cheating? I am now on the you need to STFU side.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I was not posting on any cycling forums prior to the last month- I did not know there was a place that allowed open discussion of doping related issues. Only just found this place.

So, how was anyone supposed to go back and check what you had said pre Armstrong?

Play the ball not the man.
Take the danes actively trying to bring down Rasmussen, whilst the Spanish were trying to get Contador off. Surely you do not support that kind of partisan behaviour?

I have no idea what you are on about with the Danes.

Very simply CAS is where an appeal goes - all parties can go there - that's the process, same process for everyone.
Armstrong's problem is that he did not partake in that process.

 

[spetsa]

I was not posting on any cycling forums prior to the last month- I did not know there was a place that allowed open discussion of doping

Translates to: " I didn't know that the Clinic was no longer moderated, so I came back to spew nonsense with no reprecussions:"

 

[palmerq]

ello everyone keep it on topic

 

[reginagold]

It is very, very, hard to believe WADA would go to CAS and argue that riders who doped...and sued, threatened, and otherwise intimidated anyone who tried to show they were doping, get a free pass at the end of SOL. An appeal on such grounds would likely create an enduring system of witness intimidation among all sports WADA serves. And we thought the current/past Omerta was bad.

 

[red_flanders]

First - recognise that "Kangaroo court" is a non derogatory expression actually used and referring to informal sport decision processes. So on that basis the definition is spot on.

That's patently absurd. It is clearly a derogatory remark and the claim that the USADA process is such a court is supported by any facts.

It is the wailing death throe of a disgraced cheater. You'd do well to let it go.

 

[red_flanders]

Additionally, the topic is SCA and their potential actions. Please stop with the off topic, especially long-winded, repetitive off topic postings.

 

[Benotti69]

Additionally, the topic is SCA and their potential actions. Please stop with the off topic, especially long-winded, repetitive off topic postings.

Is that not trolling and banable?

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Is that not trolling and banable?

Gree..... ???

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Look it up in a dictionary would be a good place for you to start!

First - recognise that "Kangaroo court" is a non derogatory expression actually used and referring to informal sport decision processes. So on that basis the definition is spot on.

Second - outside the purview of sport, it means a process without normal rules of justice. Normal rules of justice involve a prosecution, a defence and an independent party either judge panel or jury determining guilt from the arguments also interpreting any legal or rule based underpinning needed.

Clearly it IS therefore a kangaroo court by the accepted definition. The in Tygarts Law, the judge and prosecutor are the same, and judgement and sentence are passed before defence is even heard. With only right of appeal after sentence.So it certainly does not follow normal and equitable rules of justice.

Finally for as long as nobody can decide whether WADA SOL should be breachable by US law on SOL, or WADA rules apply regardless, the legal underpinning referenced above is at best a mess on which USADA and UCI clearly do not agree..

So certainly on balance of probablilty based on the "reasoned decision" above, Tygarts law is a kangaroo court, there rests my case "your honour"

But I have long argued , way before Armstrong met his come uppance, that there should be a sanctioning body that operates outside the country federations to stop the Danes abusing Rasmussen for example. It should also be outside the reach of UCI to manipulate the outcome (because I think pretty much the same of UCI as Tygart does!) . And that and other crass decisions like Contador (not Armstrong apologist) is my reason for arguing this.

And an athlete I once knew who was destroyed by similar kangaroo coruts in athletics. Plus ca change...

Your initial suggestion that "kangaroo court" is not derogatory is disingenuous. It is CLEARLY derogatory. If the initial proposition of your post is dishonest, what motivation do I have to read the rest with anything but skepticism. <- I always forget the question mark with rhetorical questions. Sorry.

That, and creating some superjudicial body capable of reaching across borders may sound like the solution to you, but all I see is a body that, once corrupted, becomes oppressive in ways you appear not to contemplate. So, no, I don't buy into your argument at all.

Seems to me that the system worked quite well in this case. Some people deserve/d to be punished more harshly. A one size fits all approach to USPS doping would not have been in any way reflective of the culpability the people involved.

As I count it, that's three strikes.

 

[Velodude]

Legal definition of "kangaroo court".

[Slang of U.S. origin.] An unfair, biased, or hasty judicial proceeding that ends in a harsh punishment; an unauthorized trial conducted by individuals who have taken the law into their own hands, such as those put on by vigilantes or prison inmates; a proceeding and its leaders who are considered sham, corrupt, and without regard for the law.

The concept of kangaroo court dates to the early nineteenth century. Scholars trace its origin to the historical practice of itinerant judges on the U.S. frontier. These roving judges were paid on the basis of how many trials they conducted, and in some instances their salary depended on the fines from the defendants they convicted. The term kangaroo court comes from the image of these judges hopping from place to place, guided less by concern for justice than by the desire to wrap up as many trials as the day allowed.

 

[silverrocket]

[...One classic straw man false argument, is to claim that the nature of a person who makes a statement, affects the validity or otherwise of the statement.This forum seems to specialize in doing what they most criticise Armstrong for - playing the man not the ball. I would prefer if people kept to the arguments. As for knowledge of UK law you are very wrong - even more wrong to state it without justification - I was director responsible for contracts on the board of a plc - a public contracting company for a period of years, so I spent a lot of time involved in legal matters, including the powers and benefits and lmitations of arbitrated settlements, which is why I have an interest in law...]

I'm not saying I personally don't doubt you, but in defense of the previous poster I think the point he raised is that if someone is not being truthful about who they are it raises questions about how honest and credible they are as contributers to the forum. I don't know how you can say it is a "straw man" argument, since all of trust between humans is based on the nature of the person making a statement. "Playing the ball, not the man" (your favourite saying) may work in soccer, but in real life we actually have to play both.

On a related note hockey's rule of thumb is actually the opposite: "play the man, not the puck".

 

[Pain Dane]

Has SCA found a new lawyer?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ng-return-12-million-in-bonus-earnings_263091

"SCA attorney Jeff Dorough said the letter not only seeks the return of bonus money, but also warns that SCA might go to court for legal sanctions and penalties against the 41-year-old, whom the UCI recently stripped of seven Tour de France titles for doping."

I hope this is not the same lawyer or SCA may have a problem.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/miscdocket/07/07914600.pdf

Dane

 

[Velodude]

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ng-return-12-million-in-bonus-earnings_263091

"SCA attorney Jeff Dorough said the letter not only seeks the return of bonus money, but also warns that SCA might go to court for legal sanctions and penalties against the 41-year-old, whom the UCI recently stripped of seven Tour de France titles for doping."

I hope this is not the same lawyer or SCA may have a problem.

http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/miscdocket/07/07914600.pdf

Dane

If he is the same person, what were his infractions in 2007 that would impede his running of any potential case for SCA in 2012, if he was to run the case?

 

[frenchfry]

Very simply CAS is where an appeal goes - all parties can go there - that's the process, same process for everyone.
Armstrong's problem is that he did not partake in that process.

My guess is that Armstrong and his paid thugs made a calculated decision not to partake in the process, counting on the cancer shield and public support to save him as they always had in the past. He also, by nature, refused any cooperation with USADA that may have eventually served to reduce the number of years taken into account for any sanctions. This decision, as we now know, backfired dramatically, however it was a no-win situation in any case as participation in the process would have put the same information into the public domain and likely in an even more dramatic way. I don't think even his most determined critics could have predicted the speed of Armstrong's free-fall into disgrace.

I don't know if Armstrong has the legal right to appeal to CAS but I hope not as he morally gave up this right when he arrogantly refused to confront his actions in the prescribed USADA procedure.

A key element in this was the outstanding work of USADA, the reasoned decision is a throughly professional and compelling document that has virtually eliminated any doubts about the legitimacy of the USADA process.

 

[Race Radio]

http://reader.roopstigo.com/view/roopster/story/615/#/chapter/2/

Tim Herman tries to settle for $1,000,000. SCA says no way

 

[The Gnome]

lovely...the big one I think will be when USPS goes after their 30 million...as a member of that workforce who has had a wage freeze on my pay and won't be able to get any raise until 2015 I want that G.D. money back...