• 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

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 16, 2009
19,482
2
0
ellobodelmar.spaces.live.com
21switchbacks said:
I hope none of those injuries you suffered were head injuries.
I certainly read sparks decision differently than mountainrman.
I am going to go back and read it again from his perspective.
smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif
 
mountainrman said:
I have said it time and again - the problem is there is no consistent set of rules or proper process defined ...

....

Ok, I defended you earlier.

Now, you have lost my support completely.

You have made 74 posts. While the line of reasoning is already boring, you can hardly claim to have said anything time and again unless you post under multiple handles.

The statement that you have said something time and again is minimally an overstatement. It is certainly egregious.

That you have chosen to ignore, completely, a well honed set of rules that is consistently applied underscores that such opinion has no basis.

mountainrman said:
...

That will be the last time I repeat the same issues.

....

Not to worry.

Experience suggests that there will be another handle who will repeat the same nonsense based upon ignorance of the actual process.

Dave.
 
mountainrman said:
Indeed if you read Judge Sparks conclusions - almost the first statement in his concludion is He doubted that Lance could get a fair hearing from any of them!!!

FACT CHECK: TRUE -- for example, from page 28 of the transcript that Race Radio nicely posted, Sparks concludes :

"Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations [UCI and USADA] creates doubts the charges against Armstrong would receive fair criticism in either forum."

It seems clear Sparks has serious reservations about the USADA (and UCI) process. These concerns can be seen littered throughout the decision, e.g., documented on page 17 where Sparks raises concerns about how USADA presented charges against Armstrong.

It is perfectly possible to be happy that Armstrong is meeting his just end in this case, and yet concerned as mountainrman is that the current processes are deficient. It seems likely that only the political pressure generated by USADA going public with the evidence prevented UCI from contesting SOL and jurisdictional issues.
 
Cramps said:
FACT CHECK: TRUE -- for example, from page 28 of the transcript that Race Radio nicely posted, Sparks concludes :

"Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations [UCI and USADA] creates doubts the charges against Armstrong would receive fair criticism in either forum."

It seems clear Sparks has serious reservations about the USADA (and UCI) process. These concerns can be seen littered throughout the decision, e.g., documented on page 17 where Sparks raises concerns about how USADA presented charges against Armstrong.

It is perfectly possible to be happy that Armstrong is meeting his just end in this case, and yet concerned as mountainrman is that the current processes are deficient. It seems likely that only the political pressure generated by USADA going public with the evidence prevented UCI from contesting SOL and jurisdictional issues.

:D:D

Political pressure generated by USADA?

Err... what about the California State Senators calling for a review of USADA's funding... what about the non-sensical Sensenbrenner calling for the same thing...?

:D:D

You are seriously deluded. But, keep the spin engine going.

Only by spin doctoring can we hope to keep the doping cover-up alive. Can't wait for the next Armstrong.

BTW, this is the only quote you need focus on from Judge Sparks:

“On balance, the Court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,” said Judge Sam Sparks in his final ruling on August 20th

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...te-senators-request-review.aspx#ixzz2AEGwDzQV

Dave.
 
Sep 21, 2012
296
0
0
Visit site
Cramps said:
It seems likely that only the political pressure generated by USADA going public with the evidence prevented UCI from contesting SOL and jurisdictional issues.
So; did I get this right?
USADA was able to stand up and carry on under the 'political pressure and public opinion' of it's actions while UCI folded under the pressure of the same concern?
 
mountainrman said:
A lot of that post is emotive rather than factual.
Since Taking PEDS is not illegal in the US , neither is a conspiracy to do so.
Cheating is a civil matter for sports authorities not the law
He did not blackmail in the legal sense of the word.
intimidation using valid law as a weapon is not illegal either, despite the fact I hate parasite lawyers.The charity is not operating illegally as far as anyone can tell, indeed has many grateful supporters
Only perjury and possible questions of obtaining money by deception if proven make it criminal.


All this is heinous, disgraceful, undportsmanlike and so on , but is a civil matter, and should if proven result in a major ban and stripping of titles according to a formula. But the process must not be arbitrary. It has to be even handed . it has to follow a set of rules which includes the WADA SOL

The agencies cannot even agree what the rules are, or who should police them which makes it farcical. no wonder the sport is a mess.

"Intimidation" or in the multiple instances that he attempted it, "witness tampering" I believe is an unlawful act in the states.
 
Jun 16, 2009
60
0
0
Visit site
Mountainman, unclear? This was cut directly from the USA Cycling licence application. I could dig up the UCI documents that give WADA ultimate authority on doping, but you need to do a little lifting yourself.

I agree to submit to drug testing and to comply with and to be bound by the UCI anti-doping regulations, the World Anti-Doping Code and its International Standards to which the UCI anti-doping regulations refer as well as the anti-doping regulations of other competent instances as foreseen by the UCI Regulations, the World Anti-Doping Code, or the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), provided such regulations comply with the World Anti-Doping Code. I further agree that the results of the analysis may be released to the public and communicated to my trade team, coach, or doctor in accordance with UCI and WADA regulations. I agree to allow my doctor and/or the doctor of my team, upon the request of the UCI or WADA, to release to UCI and WADA officials a list of medications or treatments administered to me before any specific competition. I agree that all urine samples in such cases taken shall become the property of the UCI and WADA, and that UCI and WADA may have them analyzed for any purpose, including, without limitation, general research and information on health protection. I accept these conditions regarding blood testing and agree to undergo all tests required of me.
 
Cramps said:
FACT CHECK: TRUE -- for example, from page 28 of the transcript that Race Radio nicely posted, Sparks concludes :

"Unfortunately, the appearance of conflict on the part of both organizations [UCI and USADA] creates doubts the charges against Armstrong would receive fair criticism in either forum."

It seems clear Sparks has serious reservations about the USADA (and UCI) process. These concerns can be seen littered throughout the decision, e.g., documented on page 17 where Sparks raises concerns about how USADA presented charges against Armstrong.

It is perfectly possible to be happy that Armstrong is meeting his just end in this case, and yet concerned as mountainrman is that the current processes are deficient. It seems likely that only the political pressure generated by USADA going public with the evidence prevented UCI from contesting SOL and jurisdictional issues.

yup...and so convinced of that were lance and his lawyers they thought they would test that in public at a hearing

and so convinced were the UCI that they thought they would test that with an appeal to CAS

on no, sorry parallel universe where actions speak louder than words...
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
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.

Lynch mobs? I get on the guys in this forum for their incessant negativity, but there are no lynch mobs. The USADA decision was careful, well researched, and well documented. There was no hanging judge - there was no malfeasance, there was no corruption of justice - it was not the decision of one man. It was not a star court, nor was it a kangaroo court.

The UCI, and McQuaid in particular, have flip-flopped all over trying to wiggle out of this.

IF YOU REALLY THINK McQUAID SHOULD GO, AND THE UCI SHOULD CHANGE - EMAIL MIKE PLANT TODAY. Don't ask "what good would it do?" It might do some good, and if it doesn't it has cost you nothing more than 5 minutes of your time. Piffle.

US email contact addies:
membership@usacycling.org;spetty@usa...usacycling.org

To: Bill Peterson, Steve Johnson, Mike Plant
USA CYCLING
210 USA Cycling Point, Suite 100
COLORADO SPRINGS CO-80919

Other countries:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19076
 
gillan1969 said:
yup...and so convinced of that were lance and his lawyers they thought they would test that in public at a hearing

and so convinced were the UCI that they thought they would test that with an appeal to CAS

on no, sorry parallel universe where actions speak louder than words...

The point is, in this, the real world we live in, a federal judge took some time to look over the USADA charges and claims, UCI claims, Armstrong objections, and write a decision where he said he had doubts about whether Armstrong would get a fair trial.

It is also true that in this, the real world, the USADA public presentation of evidence was probably key in keeping the UCI from claiming SOL and jurisdiction. UCI might have wanted to protect Armstrong, but decided against it because of the political pressure generated by the USADA going public with evidence.

We probably agree that this time, political and media pressure led to a just conclusion. But a system where justice depends upon political and media pressure sounds like a bad one to me.
 
May 10, 2011
247
0
0
Visit site
Cramps said:
The point is, in this, the real world we live in, a federal judge took some time to look over the USADA charges and claims, UCI claims, Armstrong objections, and write a decision where he said he had doubts about whether Armstrong would get a fair trial.

It is also true that in this, the real world, the USADA public presentation of evidence was probably key in keeping the UCI from claiming SOL and jurisdiction. UCI might have wanted to protect Armstrong, but decided against it because of the political pressure generated by the USADA going public with evidence.

We probably agree that this time, political and media pressure led to a just conclusion. But a system where justice depends upon political and media pressure sounds like a bad one to me.

It was the only way it was going to lead to a just conclusion. The UCI had a conflict of interest with Lance, would have run smoke and mirrors on that evidence, probably issued some lawsuits and Lance for sure would have sued people and bullied witnesses hardcore. In the face of Omerta and strongarm tactics using high powered lawyer pitbulls and politicians, USADA was the only entity immune to all of it so long as they followed the rules. They did and we've got what's in front of us.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Cramps said:
The point is, in this, the real world we live in, a federal judge took some time to look over the USADA charges and claims, UCI claims, Armstrong objections, and write a decision where he said he had doubts about whether Armstrong would get a fair trial.

It is also true that in this, the real world, the USADA public presentation of evidence was probably key in keeping the UCI from claiming SOL and jurisdiction. UCI might have wanted to protect Armstrong, but decided against it because of the political pressure generated by the USADA going public with evidence.

We probably agree that this time, political and media pressure led to a just conclusion. But a system where justice depends upon political and media pressure sounds like a bad one to me.


11 team mates testify to witnessing you doping and you have the chance to challenge that, but you decide not too. Where is that unjust?

Then there were 15 other witnesses who testified. The Andreus testified they heard Armstrong admit to doping. He admitted it. What was unjust about that?

Similar cases are brought all the time in federal courts against criminals. Armstrong is a criminal.
 
Jul 9, 2010
127
0
0
Visit site
D-Queued said:
:D:D
BTW, this is the only quote you need focus on from Judge Sparks:

“On balance, the Court finds the USADA arbitration rules, which largely follow those of the American Arbitration Association, are sufficiently robust to satisfy the requirements of due process,” said Judge Sam Sparks in his final ruling on August 20th

Dave.

You might want to remember another one, too:

"This Court agrees with the reasoning of Slaney and Harding, that federal courts should not interfere with an amateur sports organization's disciplinary procedures unless the organization shows wanton disregard for its rules, to the immediate and irreparable harm of a plaintiff, where the plaintiff has no other available remedy. To hold otherwise would be to turn federal judges into referees for a game in which they have no place, and about which they know little."
 
Aug 18, 2012
1,171
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
11 team mates testify to witnessing you doping and you have the chance to challenge that, but you decide not too. Where is that unjust?

Then there were 15 other witnesses who testified. The Andreus testified they heard Armstrong admit to doping. He admitted it. What was unjust about that?

Similar cases are brought all the time in federal courts against criminals. Armstrong is a criminal.

Do you have a list of names of the other 15 witnesses (I agree with everything you have said but would like to see them for my own reference).
 
Mishrak said:
The UCI had a conflict of interest with Lance, would have run smoke and mirrors on that evidence, probably issued some lawsuits and Lance for sure would have sued people and bullied witnesses hardcore. In the face of Omerta and strongarm tactics using high powered lawyer pitbulls and politicians, USADA was the only entity immune to all of it so long as they followed the rules. They did and we've got what's in front of us.

I agree. And while I disagree with "kangaroo court" I think mountainrman has a point that the current procedures and oversights are too complicated and political.

If the USADA had not won this battle in the court of public opinion, then it every chance the case would be mired in UCI and USADA claims and counterclaims, Armstrong lawyers in full battle mode, WADA involvement, and perhaps CAS. NIGHTMARE.
 
Jul 4, 2011
248
0
0
Visit site
Cramps said:
We probably agree that this time, political and media pressure led to a just conclusion. But a system where justice depends upon political and media pressure sounds like a bad one to me.

Completely agree. But with Judges agreeing with the case, and Armstrong refusing to fight it, sometimes you have to fight fire with fire if you want to win. Armstrong has fought his innocents with rhetoric in the media, and with the public and has done very well with it. Someone finally beat him at his own game.
 
Jul 10, 2010
2,906
1
0
Visit site
Briant_Gumble said:
Do you have a list of names of the other 15 witnesses (I agree with everything you have said but would like to see them for my own reference).

Go to the thread "Evidence Links Only" - at the end you will find the decision and supporting documents and statements that have been published. The thread is a sticky in this forum.