• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Tygarts angry reaction to UCI criiticism of his kangaroomcourt

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci?newsfeed=true

Anyone who doubted the hopeless mess in the doping (in) justice system embodied by these kangaroo courts need only read the article above. Too many organisations, bosses and different agendas, so cycling cannot even get this right - it is rapidly descending into another farce.

It needs rebuilding bottom up with a single consistent system without geographic boundaries, based on justice principles, with a single organisation in which the DA is prosecutor, not judge and jury, and UCI are kept as far away as possible.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Woo hoo!. It's sock puppets-a-go-go.

Watching these pathetic tail-enders struggle and screech about reality has become really funny.

By which you mean Tygart and McQuaid I presume.

Cycling does not need an argument about jurisdiction or the underlying law at a time like this but it now has one big time, which was evident to any observer of process at the time of The "charging letter"
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
Visit site
Someone been knocking back a few tall cool ones?
Q5PHj.jpg
 
Jul 16, 2012
201
0
0
Visit site
"Perhaps the most serious of McQuaid's claims is that Usada deprived Armstrong of the benefit of an eight-year statute of limitations under Wada's Code. Theoretically, this would rule out of court all Usada's evidence of doping violations prior to 2004, the year of Armstrong's penultimate Tour de France victory. McQuaid goes on to note that this statute of limitations could have formed the basis for a partial defence if Armstrong had accepted a Cas hearing on his case. The UCI president adds that while the UCI itself would not appeal to Cas on the basis of this claimed infringement of the statute, Wada should, or could, in his view, make such an appeal for the sake of enforcing compliance. In short, the UCI advises Wada that it has a responsibility to appeal against Usada's ruling against Armstrong's doping operation."

WADA and the IOC have to really confront the UCI now - this is ridiculous - basically the UCI thumbing its nose at everyone - still trying to protect Armstrong and themselves. Where are the legal forumites? what can be done now?
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
It doesn't. Ask a certain Mr Sparks.

It clearly does - read the above. UCI and USADA cannot agree even on fundamental issues like SOL and right of appeal. Sparks did NOT validate the process, he simply said he could not intervene until the process was exhausted. Suggest you read the judgement, not the Anti armstrong lynch mobs incorrect interpretation of it.
 
Jul 29, 2009
175
0
0
Visit site
Despite the legal mess and maybe incorrect procedures, USADA still did a brilliant job and succeeded where the feds failed. What is even bigger than a legal verdict is public opinion and reputation. And they won that battle big time. Even if Armstrong appeals to CAS and even if he wins on some legal loophole and he gets his TdF France titles back imagine the outcry this would create. He is doomed no matter what.
And Pat is such a snake, isn't he?
 
mountainrman said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci?newsfeed=true

Anyone who doubted the hopeless mess in the doping (in) justice system embodied by these kangaroo courts need only read the article above. Too many organisations, bosses and different agendas, so cycling cannot even get this right - it is rapidly descending into another farce.

It needs rebuilding bottom up with a single consistent system without geographic boundaries, based on justice principles, with a single organisation in which the DA is prosecutor, not judge and jury, and UCI are kept as far away as possible.

Tell your master that clinging to this excuse is old, invalid and discredited.
Tell him to come up with a new one.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
the asian said:
Tell your master that clinging to this excuse is old, invalid and discredited.
Tell him to come up with a new one.

Wrong. i am no supporter of Armstrong, but neither do I support lynch mobs,

Cycling had to get this right, and right now the lack of consistent viewpoint is making another farce,. How can anyone have faith in cycling if the organisations cannot even agree with each other? If I were a sponsor, I would run.

Too many organisations. Too many agendas, No clear set of rules. Not even lipservice to normal justice.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
Briant_Gumble said:
Is someone going to ban this 'mountainrman' fool. Clearly another intern.

Suggest you read the article. It is USADA and UCI arguing - inevitable given the lack of structure. Don't shoot the messenger. This was predictable.
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
Bosco10 said:
I am beginning to find that out. Pat presented things one way in the press conference, and quite another way in his written response.

iMHO UCI should have nothing to do with doping justice, they have too big a conflict of interests. Pat should not be involved. Or sacked! One or preferably both.
 
mountainrman said:
Wrong. i am no supporter of Armstrong, but neither do I support lynch mobs,

I hereby state that I am a proud member of the lynch mob and will be passing out pitch forks, torches, and hoes. Get yours while they last. Same bat meeting time, same bat place, same bat recalcitrant target of fury. Please bring your own lunch.

lynch+mob.jpg
 
mountainrman said:
Wrong. i am no supporter of Armstrong, but neither do I support lynch mobs,

Cycling had to get this right, and right now the lack of consistent viewpoint is making another farce,. How can anyone have faith in cycling if the organisations cannot even agree with each other? If I were a sponsor, I would run.

Too many organisations. Too many agendas, No clear set of rules. Not even lipservice to normal justice.

Too many good things for too many people...

Normal justice?

Lance has been confirmed as a thief - he stole millions. So far, the only punishment received is the addition of DSQ beside his name on some database.

In some jurisdictions, normal justice would see at least one hand chopped off or worse.

Dave.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
Suggest you read the article. It is USADA and UCI arguing....

No, it's the UCI doing the same thing, and spewing the same rhetoric they always have, with Tygart making them look like the fools they are. Tygart doesn't even need to say anything and McQuaid looks like an idiot. McQuaid is so slithery he makes a snake as rough as 60 grit sandpaper.
 
Jul 29, 2009
175
0
0
Visit site
Many might not like it but mountainman has a point. Reading the German media there is momentum building from law experts who question the process of USADA. Maybe that's also where the feds struggled a bit. And none of them are Armstrong fans. However, as mentioned earlier, the more important race is that for public opinion and at this stage Tygart is clearly giving Pat and LA "the look" and gapped them big time - he will win this important stage. Lets hope he will keep the advantage all the way to Paris.
 
So the UCI said OK we accept usadas decision.

Then Mcqaid is dumb enough to later put up a post stating "but we really don't like it and think USADA are wrong, but we did'nt have the guts to say so in front of the press so we attach this letter instead".:eek:

This forum needs a serious facepalm icon.

Seems Pat is hell bent on making himself look monumentally stupid.:D
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
H2OUUP2 said:
. Tygart doesn't even need to say anything and McQuaid looks like an idiot. .

On that we can agree! But the fiasco proves the rule book is not well enough defined, there are too many organisations, and IMHO , UCI should have no part in it.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Visit site
ToreBear said:
So the UCI said OK we accept usadas decision.

Then Mcqaid is dumb enough to later put up a post stating "but we really don't like it and think USADA are wrong, but we did'nt have the guts to say so in front of the press so we attach this letter instead".:eek:

This forum needs a serious facepalm icon.

Seems Pat is hell bent on making himself look monumentally stupid.:D

Pretty much! If USADA didn't follow the rules, then why agree? The UCI makes me laugh.