Tygarts angry reaction to UCI criiticism of his kangaroomcourt

[Cyivel]

mountainrman needs to be slapped into space.

 

[Lukenwolf]

The system needs fixing, and to be made credible again, which it is not.
Postcode lottery should not apply, but it does in cycling. Small wonder dopers flock to Spain.

Tell that to Hein Crime and Phat Crook. They búilt the system.

One thing you don't get though. Armstrong does NOT deserve the same treatment as the other dopists. He deserves a prison sentence - a lengthy one.
He built and ran an a scheme of organized crime (colloquially known as cosa nostra or mafia). He blackmailed and coerced riders into doping. He terrorized (ask Levi's wife) and intimidated witnesses. He tried to blackmail Barrack Obama for ****s sake! (read Selina Roberts' publication). He set up a bogus charity that he used to enrich himself. The guy doesn't deserve the same treatment as a guy who injected EPO after being bullied into it. He deserves a ****ing firing squad come to think of it.

 

[mountainrman]

Tell that to Hein Crime and Phat Crook. They búilt the system.

One thing you don't get though. Armstrong does NOT deserve the same treatment as the other dopists. He deserves a prison sentence - a lengthy one.
He built and ran an a scheme of organized crime (colloquially known as cosa nostra or mafia). He blackmailed and coerced riders into doping. He terrorized (ask Levi's wife) and intimidated witnesses. He tried to blackmail Barrack Obama for ****s sake! (read Selina Roberts' publication). He set up a bogus charity that he used to enrich himself. The guy doesn't deserve the same treatment as a guy who injected EPO after being bullied into it. He deserves a ****ing firing squad come to think of it.

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.

 

[eyemgh]

You need to research the legal context of that lawsuit, it is not what you claim at all. Sparks indicates that the only way that Armstrong can be granted relief from his own assent to USADA proceeding is if " immediate irreperable harm " is done to Armstrongs constitutional rights regarding property or freedom. Because of the possibility of arbitrated appeal, and only because of that, the court considered harm would not be either irreperable or immediate. Sparks actually slates the process in the conclusion soecifically saying that because of jurisdictional arguments he felt it UNLIKELY Armstrong could get a fair hearing with ANY of them, and if you were a court watcher you would know how damining that is an indictment of all the agencies concerned, for all that stating Armstrong had to exhaust the arbitration process first. It was a long way from expressing satisfaction at the process to that point or anticipated. Sparks also questions dubious motives by USADA too.

Reality is the lack of coherence is making yet another farce at a time cycling needs to sing with a unified voice to stop sponsors runnng for cover.

Drivel! I read every word released by Starks. Nice try!

 

[Hugh Januss]

Just exactly what is it in the USADA process that's so broken? I've yet to hear anyone articulate this in an intelligent manner. Hint: yelling "kangaroo court" isn't "discussing it in an articulate manner".

The argument some have made is that USADA/WADA doesn't adhere to the exact same due process standards as a US criminal court. Let me tell you, as someone bound by these rules, I DO NOT WANT ANTI-DOPING AGENCIES TO BE BOUND TO THE SAME DUE PROCESS STANDARDS AS THE US CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM! Why not? because the standard of proof to put someone in jail shouldn't be the same as sanctioning someone for doping. The stakes are different: individual liberty vs. sporting competition. In the game of fairness, it's a balance--balancing the rights of those who dope, or are accused of doping to a fair hearing, vs. those like me who aren't doping, and a right to compete on a truly level playing field. Adhering to the same due process standards as US criminal law would be untenable, and shift the advantage heavily to those willing to cheat. I really don't want that, but thanks for being concerned about my rights.

So, I'll ask again: what exactly is so draconian about the USADA/WADA policies?

That is the point, in a nutshell. Mr. mountainrman/notlancefan, why don't you respond to this instead of keeping up the dooshry with the other kids?

 

[eyemgh]

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.

This is proof that you're a troll because this statement is simply a lie. It is very clear to EVERYONE INCLUDING THE UCI who has authority. They just don't like it, because now they feel some risk that the sham they've been perpetuating will be exposed.

 

[singletrack mind]

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.

When one agency, the UCI, has it in its best interests to cover up doping, of course they aren't going to be on the same page.

That's like saying because the police an the criminals aren't on the same page they shouldn't enforce laws.

 

[idttywlm]

Tell that to Hein Crime and Phat Crook. They búilt the system.

. He deserves a ****ing firing squad come to think of it.

Lukenwolf I find your posts extremely offensive. I dislike these people but I don't say I want to commit murder or see someone executed. Come on man!

 

[skidmark]

That is the point, in a nutshell. Mr. mountainrman/notlancefan, why don't you respond to this instead of keeping up the dooshry with the other kids?

+1

Seriously, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and not pile on with the group of people who are picking on you because you're bringing up unpopular points, but you haven't said anything reasonable to back up your claim. The fact that you've responded to posts since 131313s legitimate and very clearly phrased question, but ignored his, is speaking volumes about your true agenda. If you don't answer the very clear question put forth, I (and probably the few people on the forum who haven't already done so) am gonna have to assume that your real agenda is to try to distract the conversation away from the man who COULD HAVE APPEALED TO PUT THIS IN A LEGIT COURT SETTING and towards things that don't matter. Yes the UCI is a mess; yes USADA is different than a court and legal systems are confusing. If you don't have a point beyond that, stop talking about it.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Troll, troll, troll, troll your A$$,
Gently down the stream,
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily,
Your living in a dream......

I swear to the sweet loving Shiva that I dreamt last night that someone had turned a nursery rhyme into an anti-d*ouche song.

Time to buy a lotto ticket...

 

[mr. tibbs]

[quoting 131313] That is the point, in a nutshell. Mr. mountainrman/notlancefan, why don't you respond to this instead of keeping up the dooshry with the other kids?

[quoting Hugh Janus] +1

Seriously, I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt and not pile on with the group of people who are picking on you because you're bringing up unpopular points, but you haven't said anything reasonable to back up your claim. The fact that you've responded to posts since 131313s legitimate and very clearly phrased question, but ignored his, is speaking volumes about your true agenda. If you don't answer the very clear question put forth, I (and probably the few people on the forum who haven't already done so) am gonna have to assume that your real agenda is to try to distract the conversation away from the man who COULD HAVE APPEALED TO PUT THIS IN A LEGIT COURT SETTING and towards things that don't matter. Yes the UCI is a mess; yes USADA is different than a court and legal systems are confusing. If you don't have a point beyond that, stop talking about it.

mountainrman, here's your chance to respond to 131313, just in case you missed it the first time. When answering, please remember the following:

Armstrong agreed to abide by USADA's rules when they came into being and he continued to ride with a US license.

I was going to mention some other points, and then I realized that I don't have to.

Just exactly what is it in the USADA process that's so broken? I've yet to hear anyone articulate this in an intelligent manner. Hint: yelling "kangaroo court" isn't "discussing it in an articulate manner".

The argument some have made is that USADA/WADA doesn't adhere to the exact same due process standards as a US criminal court. Let me tell you, as someone bound by these rules, I DO NOT WANT ANTI-DOPING AGENCIES TO BE BOUND TO THE SAME DUE PROCESS STANDARDS AS THE US CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM! Why not? because the standard of proof to put someone in jail shouldn't be the same as sanctioning someone for doping. The stakes are different: individual liberty vs. sporting competition. In the game of fairness, it's a balance--balancing the rights of those who dope, or are accused of doping to a fair hearing, vs. those like me who aren't doping, and a right to compete on a truly level playing field. Adhering to the same due process standards as US criminal law would be untenable, and shift the advantage heavily to those willing to cheat. I really don't want that, but thanks for being concerned about my rights.

So, I'll ask again: what exactly is so draconian about the USADA/WADA policies?

 

[TubularBills]

USADA Vs. uci.

 

[Velodude]

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.

"His kangaroomcourt" "kangaroo courts"

OP showing his bias by editoralizing the newspaper's article to fit his unwavering faith and hopes.

Did not find any reference in the article to this bounding Australian mammal or its connotations.

 

[Cimacoppi49]

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.

IMO, you are nothing more than an Armstrong troll just now surfacing to attempt to muddy the waters with sewage from the UCI/Armstrong camp.

Armstrong failed in federal court to block the USADA's proceeding agqinst him. Judge Sparks noted in his decision that any failure to provide sufficient due process to Armstrong in an American Arbitration Association conducted hearing resulting in an adverse finding against him could.be chalenged by Armstrong via an appeal to CAS. It is un likely the federal courts would entertain a judicial attack on the due process of that AAA proceeding until all of Armstrong's administrative remedies, to wit, an appeal to CAS, had finalized the administrative proceedings with a finding against him. In order to avail himself of a post-administrative appea to a US federal court, he first had to join and contest the USADA AAA proceeding which, of course, he failed to do. As such, despite the bald assertion by the UCI that Armstrong has standing to appeal a matter he has refused to litigate, it is likely that USADA is correct that Armstrong has no standing to appeal to CAS.

Could Armstrong ask CAS to consider an appeal by him? Of course he could. Would CAS hear the substance of that Appeal? Unlikely, but assume for a moment that they did and ruled in Armstrong's favor. The UCI has conceded jurisdiction of the matter to USADA? That makes it improbable that a pro-Armstrong CAS ruling would be considered, ratified by a Swiss court. Any judicial ratification of a CAS ruling in Armstrong's favor would have to be done in a US federal court, and not necessarily Judge Sparks court in Texas. (someone would have to check the venue requirements of the federal rules) All of this litigation would be quite costly for Armstrong, a man with ever diminishing sources of income. IMO, he would actually do little more than continue to make a public fool of himself and dig his grave ever deeper.

Say hello to Fabiani and Herman. Keep trolling for Lance.

 

[cathulu]

Mountainrman is parroting Empfield's drivel. Enough said right there.

I takeaway the short and sweet from Sparksy that USADA process was robust enough for Pharmastrong to defend himself. Prance declined. EOS. Mountainrman move on to something else... your line of reasoning will go no where. There are bigger problems to solve first.

 

[21switchbacks]

you need to research the legal context of that lawsuit, it is not what you claim at all. Sparks indicates that the only way that armstrong can be granted relief from his own assent to usada proceeding is if " immediate irreperable harm " is done to armstrongs constitutional rights regarding property or freedom. Because of the possibility of arbitrated appeal, and only because of that, the court considered harm would not be either irreperable or immediate. sparks actually slates the process in the conclusion soecifically saying that because of jurisdictional arguments he felt it unlikely armstrong could get a fair hearing with any of them, and if you were a court watcher you would know how damining that is an indictment of all the agencies concerned, for all that stating armstrong had to exhaust the arbitration process first. It was a long way from expressing satisfaction at the process to that point or anticipated. Sparks also questions dubious motives by usada too.

Reality is the lack of coherence is making yet another farce at a time cycling needs to sing with a unified voice to stop sponsors runnng for cover.

ORLY?

"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. This court declines to assume either the pool of potential arbitrators, or the ultimate arbitral panel itself, will be unwilling or unable to render a conscientious decision based on the evidence before it. Further, armstrong has ample appellate avenues open to him."

I hope none of those injuries you suffered were head injuries.

 

[Maxiton]

Tygart does a star turn in the new Toto:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/toto/2012/toto-turns-263

 

[skidmark]

mountainrman, here's your chance to respond to 131313, just in case you missed it the first time. When answering, please remember the following:

Armstrong agreed to abide by USADA's rules when they came into being and he continued to ride with a US license.

I was going to mention some other points, and then I realized that I don't have to.

Hmm, all over this thread for 4 hours, ignoring one legit question and responding after it was posted, then 2 more people repeat the same question and he's gone? Great, it was that easy. See ya later, 'mountainrman'. Better luck with your next user name, but I bet you won't even get to 85 posts before people see through the obfuscation.

On topic - I thought Tygart spoke incredibly well in the article and articulated the problems facing cycling quite well. Things are stirred up, and although McQuaid responded in a predictable 'batten down the hatches' way, it still seems the UCI is shaken enough that they might be ripe for some kind of change. It'll never be a full and good change with McQuaid, though.

 

[GJB123]

To be honest the one valuable point he has made, is that it is a crying shame that two agencies who should have the same agenda are fighting publically over these issues (SOL and jurisdiction). However where he goes wrong is that the UCI actually have a legal basis for their assertions and that is this therefore a legal dispute. It isn't.

The UCI is not interested in providing a legal basis for their assertions. They are simply opposing WADA/USADA interpretation of the rules because it serves Pat's Hein's agenda best. It is a political issue and one that will come back to haunt the UCi, Pat and Hein for a long time to come.

 

[Franklin]

Now I'm certainly not an LA fan as my posting history has shown, but there is at least some "merit" in questioning procedure. The SOL of 8 years is part of WADA/USADA. USADA has certainly tried to explain why it makes an exception, but it would have been a hard sell at CAS.

And that clinches it for me; Lance should have let it go to CAS, he probably would have lost at most 1-2 TdF's and would have been able to get a good fight letting the older evidence to be inadmissible. But he was himself and tried to do it his way

It was his own choice not to fight, so he can't complain about this outcome. I'm certainly not complaining

 

[mountainrman]

mountainrman, here's your chance to respond to 131313, just in case you missed it the first time. When answering, please remember the following:

Armstrong agreed to abide by USADA's rules when they came into being and he continued to ride with a US license.

I was going to mention some other points, and then I realized that I don't have to.

I have said it time and again - the problem is there is no consistent set of rules or proper process defined - and this farce and lack of agreement between USADA at UCI, and no doubt with WADA joining the bunfight later, all disagreeing on the process proves the point.

The UCI critiques were probably written in essence by UCI lawyers not mcQuaid , and are only voicing similar opinions by other media legal eagles.So look in UCI report and other media commentaries to find what is wrong with USADA process. Was Tygart away the day they talked about jurisprudence on his law degree?

You can be as rude as you like to those who do not think the sun shines out of Tygarts backside, but you cannot use the "armstrong lover" tag (I am not for one) at all of those who question the process, many of whom are coming at a legal angle, nothing to do with cycling.

Entirely predictable, and pedicted by me. Cycling does not need to be made more of laughing stock than it already is by having undignified squabbles like this.

To manage the process needed all parties singing from the same hymn sheet, to retain what little shred of credibility they have left.

The justice system needs rebuilding bottom up where prosecutors are not also judge, and the spanish do not get to judge their own cases for example.

UCI sport promotion role, needs splitting from Doping sanction role which should be handled by a different body that has no conflict of interests, so is not tempted to hide bad news.

Tygart is right that UCI have too many conflicts of interests and too poor a record to get involved, but that does not allow him to ride roughshod over justice either. Two wrongs do not make a right.

He has hopelessly compromised any chance for Bruyneel to get a fair trial
He may be as guilty as hell, but even then should have a fair hearing - that is the difference between real justice and a kangaroo court.

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!!! A damning indictment of the entire charade, but he could not intervene because there was no "immediate and irreperable" harm to Armstrongs Consitutional rights, for as long as there was an appeal to arbitration - indeed Sparks reckoned that the place to fight over jurisdiction was arbitration not his court. He certainly did not rubber stamp the process as being fair and equitable, as Armstrong haters would have you believe. He was asked to rule on consitutional rights, and that is what he did. He ruled that "no immediate and irreperable" harm could come from proceeding with USADA

I wonder if he would rule the same, if Bruyneel could afford and was of nationality to take the fight back there, after Tygart compromised his case so badly by putting all documents in public domain. I would say there is immediate irreperable harm in publishing the decision in respect of such as Bruyneel.!

All basic stuff.

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

Proof of the pudding that it is all a fasco is other legal commentators are agreeing with UCI that indeed for example Lance can appeal the SOL which is in violoation of WADA code etc etc, but Tygart disagrees. The disagreements should have been worked through BEFORE putting any of it in public domain.

Cycling does not need yet more controversy about how inadequate its justice is.

If I were a sponsor I would run a mile, and certainly have nothing to do with the sport for as long as McQuaid was stil in office.

I admire Tygart that he stood up to Lance with his legal intimidation machine, but it is less of a risk with a goverment funded office behind you - when some of the other players who had to fight all on their own. There was I admit - a risk that "pressure could be applied" behind the scences that might have cost him his job. I still do not like some of what was done in the name of that office - the failure to agree with other agencies on a set of rules on how to proceed being one.

 

[Race Radio]

I have said it time and again - the problem is there is no consistent set of rules or proper process defined -

Yes, there is. You just choose to not read them.

 

[ValleyFlowers]

The disagreements should have been worked through BEFORE putting any of it in public domain.

Cycling does not need yet more controversy about how inadequate its justice is.

There were NO disagreements till UCI brought them forth into the public domain.

Only UCI is a 'cycling organization' and it subscribes to the World Anti-Doping Code.
USADA/WADA/CAS are not 'cycling organizations'.

If UCI has different legal interpretations of 'results management authority' and 'statute of limitations' it could, if it wished, appeal to a higher authority and make it's case why USADA erred in it's own legal interpretations.
This IS the standard method of working through legal disagreements. Not just in sports anti-doping either.

I have said it time and again - the problem is there is no consistent set of rules or proper process defined - and this farce and lack of agreement between USADA at UCI, ..., all disagreeing on the process proves the point.

Sorry, you're wrong. This IS the proper process using the correct rules. The 'lack of agreement' isn't new - others have challenged it before - and it's stood the test of those challenges. Not just from cycling alone, but from all the sports that subscribe to the World Anti-Doping Code.

It's only since Armstrong has been charged that the level of 'background noise' had increased in pitch and tenor.

But, really, why should he expect to be treated any differently than any other rank and file athlete?

 

[ebandit]

and i babble on............and on

I have said it time and again - the problem is there is no consistent set of rules or proper process defined - and this farce and lack of agreement between USADA at UCI, and no doubt with WADA joining the bunfight later, all disagreeing on the process proves the point and babbling on.................and on ............and on

the wada code is a good start..............dry stuff...........yet? more interesting than your post

cycling is not perfect but it's getting there..............credibility is boosted by nailing high profile dopers alberto and lance

independant testing must be the next move

 

[ValleyFlowers]

I have said it time and again ....

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

Saying it over and over doesn't make it correct.
Gawd, I hope that 2nd bit is true.

The UCI critiques were probably written in essence by UCI lawyers not mcQuaid , and are only voicing similar opinions by other media legal eagles.So look in UCI report and other media commentaries to find what is wrong with USADA process. Was Tygart away the day they talked about jurisprudence on his law degree?

Put 2 lawyers in a room and you'll get 3 DIFFERENT opinions on the facts and applicable law.
Tygart's legal team and McQuaid's legal team have different legal interpretations.
Yet McQuaid's legal team seems to have 'folded their hand' to Tygart's legal team's opinion.