Tyler's Book

[the big ring]

C'mon.... the UCI did theses tests, and the UCI was going to be doing "results management", and the tests were done in Europe, in Switzerland, not the US. So what role would USADA have in this? Tyler went to Switzerland to fight with the UCI's lab analysis of not only his Vuelta B sample but also a sample from the Athens Olympics that also showed a positive. Any appeal of the UCI's findings would have been before CAS, not USADA, right? The bolded line just seems like such a throwaway, so gratuitous, and so calculated to plant in the mind of the reader the false notion that USADA has jurisdiction over all doping charges, no matter where they arise or who does the initial testing. And that's just not the case under the WADA Code or the UCI's ADR.

Sigh.

UCI hand over positive tests to the rider's anti-doping body. That's all he's saying. It costs money and lawyers to prosecute a rider, there's no way UCI ever do that.

You know. Like Contador got done for Clenbuterol, by the UCI, then the Spanish federation had to deal with it. And had said he was guilty, but then changed their minds. THEN Contador appealed to CAS.

Can't believe a 30 year lawyer can get this stuff so easily wrong. Man alive. Are you related to Krebs Cycle by any chance?

 

[Benotti69]

Sigh.

UCI hand over positive tests to the rider's anti-doping body. That's all he's saying. It costs money and lawyers to prosecute a rider, there's no way UCI ever do that.

You know. Like Contador got done for Clenbuterol, by the UCI, then the Spanish federation had to deal with it. And had said he was guilty, but then changed their minds. THEN Contador appealed to CAS.

Can't believe a 30 year lawyer can get this stuff so easily wrong. Man alive. Are you related to Krebs Cycle by any chance?

Doubt he is Lawyer. But defo a liewrong fan.

 

[LauraLyn]

Read a nice article on the train from the airport today in the Süddeutsche Zeitung: "Hölle - Lance was das System". A really good discussion of the Tyler book and raising some rather pointed questions about Verbruggen and the UCI.

Seems like they come from these two articles published yesterday on their site:

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/fr...rmstrong-das-doping-system-steuerte-1.1459949

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/sport/fr...strong-das-doping-system-steuerte-1.1459949-2

 

[the big ring]

Bahahahahahhahahhaa

https://es.twitter.com/Laura_Weislo/status/243790817746096128

Spent the AM prepping for my interview with @Ty_Hamilton but I guess he's afraid to talk to Cyclingnews... put off once again. Time to ride!

What an arrogant schmuck. Tyler Hamilton told Lance Armstrong to F**K OFF in the middle of a friggin' bike race, and published an omerta busting book. And Weislo thinks he's scared of her.

Hilarity.

After seeing the pro-Armstrong posts from her on CN and here in the forums, I am not surprised he's spurned her.

ETA: Tyler clearly loves cancer. And Laura rode / rides for the Spin Cycle/Triangle Radiation Oncology Team. (http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=3745)

 

[Cloxxki]

Does Tyler mention whose blood he used?

 

[python]

Bahahahahahhahahhaa

https://es.twitter.com/Laura_Weislo/status/243790817746096128


What an arrogant schmuck. Tyler Hamilton told Lance Armstrong to F**K OFF in the middle of a friggin' bike race, and published an omerta busting book. And Weislo thinks he's scared of her.

Hilarity.

After seeing the pro-Armstrong posts from her on CN and here in the forums, I am not surprised he's spurned her.

I cannot figure out laura's message sometimes. I did read some well written stuff from her as well as downright raw material preordained for a journo (or the CN) perceived sense of balance.

That tweet adds to the inconsistency.

@cloxxi

I have not finished reading but the only reference I saw was that fuentes screwed up blood bags...no mention of who the bag belonged to.

 

[Cloxxki]

@cloxxi

I have not finished reading but the only reference I saw was that fuentes screwed up blood bags...no mention of who the bag belonged to.

Way to win the Olympics, on the wrong bag of blood...
Maybe Fuentes just found a somewhat matching blood type, and made it happen when he's dropped the bag all over the floor of his lab. But a bit of a coincidence. More likely would be that donor blood was stolen from clinics or blood banks, or a dedicated donor was appointed.
When one bag of of your own blood just won't cut it, or race schedule doesn't permit being charged on fresh blood for the big one...

 

[QuickStepper]

Why would the UCI be doing the testing at the Olympics?

The IOC test at the Olympics. The results are sent to the various federations.

USADA is responsible for implementation of the World Anti-Doping Code in the United States.

Yes, but he was in Europe at the time, and the tests were done in Europe as well, using UCI testing, not USADA, at least for the Vuelta and the TdF. IOC, well, I'm not sure, but I'll take your word for it (although I thought WADA itself didn't actually do any testing...did they?, and these were tests done in Athens, not the US).

 

[the big ring]

Yes, but he was in Europe at the time, and the tests were done in Europe as well, using UCI testing, not USADA, at least for the Vuelta and the TdF.

Duh. And Alberto was in FRANCE at the time, using UCI testing, not RFEC, getting pinged for Clenbuterol, and then RFEC had to hand down the ban, AFTER the arbitration.

Are you hard of reading or something?

 

[QuickStepper]

Duh. And Alberto was in FRANCE at the time, using UCI testing, not RFEC, getting pinged for Clenbuterol, and then RFEC had to hand down the ban, AFTER the arbitration.

Are you hard of reading or something?

Yeah, and up your's too. It's was an honest observation because the passages in the book are not clear about the charges that were actually levied against Tyler, i.e., whether he was appealing the positive from the TdF or from the Olympics, or both. Reading the entire passage from the rest of the chapter though clarified it somewhat for me.

Oh, and thanks for the gratuitous info re: AC....but I don't remember mentioning him, and this isn't about the proceedings that were brought against him.

But gee, thanks for straightening me out. You're a real friend to all....kind, courteous, polite. You and Benotti, quite a pair.

 

[Bratam]

I am in Australia and cannot wait for shipping. Anyone got a link for buying an electronic copy ? I can't find one anywhere. Thanks

 

[QuickStepper]

I am in Australia and cannot wait for shipping. Anyone got a link for buying an electronic copy ? Thanks

Amazon has it for Kindle. Barnes & Noble has it for Nook. Not aware of any other online e-versions for downloading. Tons of places can ship it worldwide. Just do a "Google Shopping" search.

 

[the big ring]

It's was an honest observation because the passages in the book are not clear about the charges that were actually levied against Tyler, i.e., whether he was appealing the positive from the TdF or from the Olympics, or both. Reading the entire passage from the rest of the chapter though clarified it somewhat for me.

The charges are he doped. Why is that confusing for you? And where they happened is irrelevant. In either case USADA would be the first port of call for the case.

Here's what you actually said:

I just had to laugh when I read this given all the arguing we went though about UCI vs. USADA jurisdiction in the Lance vs. USADA threads.

In this passage of the book, Tyler describes how, 29 days after the Olympics, he is notified by the UCI that his blood samples taken during the 2004 Tour of Spain showed the presence of someone else's blood.



C'mon.... the UCI did theses tests, and the UCI was going to be doing "results management", and the tests were done in Europe, in Switzerland, not the US. So what role would USADA have in this? Tyler went to Switzerland to fight with the UCI's lab analysis of not only his Vuelta B sample but also a sample from the Athens Olympics that also showed a positive. Any appeal of the UCI's findings would have been before CAS, not USADA, right? The bolded line just seems like such a throwaway,

so gratuitous, and so calculated to plant in the mind of the reader the false notion that USADA has jurisdiction over all doping charges, no matter where they arise or who does the initial testing. And that's just not the case under the WADA Code or the UCI's ADR.

I'm guessing this is coming from Coyle and not Hamilton. I find it just as bad as the silly PR stuff Armstrong's people engage in; this is just a lot more subtle, but still just as wrong IMHO.

So, a "gratuitous, calculated plant" of a "false notion" that "USADA has jursidiction over all doping charges" FOR US RIDERS "no matter where they arise or who does the initial testing", is "not the case under the WADA Code or the UCI's ADR".

Is just an "honest observation"? Honest? Are you seriously saying you know the WADA code and UCI ADR so well that you can instantly tell this is wrong?

Come again?

Are you seriously saying that your original post, where you were laughing at the dishonesty of it all, is just an "honest observation"?

Seriously?

After all the to-ing and fro-ing about USADA vs UCI vs Armstrong and who has jurisdiction and how it works?

UCI NEVER prosecute the athlete. They didn't even handle Floyd's letter - the first thing they did was send it to USADA.

Who do you think would be responsible for the case if not USADA for the US rider?

I am just DYING to know.

Honestly.

A lawyer saying he was being honest.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

I just had to laugh when I read this given all the arguing we went though about UCI vs. USADA jurisdiction in the Lance vs. USADA threads.

I just had to groan when I read that.

C'mon.... the UCI did theses tests, and the UCI was going to be doing "results management", and the tests were done in Europe, in Switzerland, not the US. So what role would USADA have in this?

Gonna reiterate the above replies in the hope that you will take note of what one of us is saying. If UCI does the tests, they interpret the data (iow results management) and hand their findings to the national body. UCI NEVER determines the sanctions. The athlete has to argue their case with their national body, if they don't like the answer, they take it to CAS.

Hamilton and Coyle have every right to believe what they wrote, because UCI has handed test results over to a national federation or anti doping organisation for the purpose of disciplinary action in every other case (excepting the ones the UCI covered up). I think your accusation is entirely unfounded.

 

[QuickStepper]

The charges are he doped. Why is that confusing for you? And where they happened is irrelevant. In either case USADA would be the first port of call for the case.

UCI NEVER prosecute the athlete. They didn't even handle Floyd's letter - the first thing they did was send it to USADA.

Who do you think would be responsible for the case if not USADA for the US rider?

I am just DYING to know.

The way I read the WADA Code and the UCI's ADR, if UCI determines to turn it over to the national federation, that's their choice. Is your statement that they "NEVER" prosecute really so? Is there historical data that supports that view? What did the UCI do before USADA existed? Who imposed sanctions then? Never? The way I read it, the UCI's ADR does not make it mandatory to turn over a positive test result to the NGB; UCI can exercise jurisdiction in the first instance if that organization first discovered the instance of a violation. Like I said, it's a subtle difference. Just because a particular protocol has been followed in the past and is usual course of conduct in such matters does not mean it's the only protocol that MUST be followed in every case. Now if you can cite me a provision from the WADA Code or the UCI's ADR that says the NGB or Federation must take the case first even if UCI is the body that initially makes the discovery of doping, I'd love to see that.

 

[QuickStepper]

I just had to groan when I read that.



Gonna reiterate the above replies in the hope that you will take note of what one of us is saying. If UCI does the tests, they interpret the data (iow results management) and hand their findings to the national body. UCI NEVER determines the sanctions. The athlete has to argue their case with their national body, if they don't like the answer, they take it to CAS.

Hamilton and Coyle have every right to believe what they wrote, because UCI has handed test results over to a national federation or anti doping organisation for the purpose of disciplinary action in every other case (excepting the ones the UCI covered up). I think your accusation is entirely unfounded.

It's not an "accusation" at all It's simply a point of reference. I think you are certainly riight when you say that in most instances UCI turns over the results to the national body. But I do not think they are required to do so under the UCI's ADR (and the provisions also give UCI the initial jurisdiction for "results management"-- which actually has a meaning different than simply interpreting the data, but which also includes the imposition of sanctions, including forfeitures, stripping of prizes and money-- which does not conflict witht the WADA Code either).

I do appreciate though your response, and understand how things are "usually" done. I'm just saying that I don't think the WADA Code or UCI ADR requires that things be done this way in every instance. And that's what the passage in the book implies, and I think it's not a correct statement. That's all.

 

[ElChingon]

@cloxxi
I have not finished reading but the only reference I saw was that fuentes screwed up blood bags...no mention of who the bag belonged to.

I can see it now, Fuentes blood delivery service, "Here Brillo! Here Brillo!", Wait that's Bella's? No Tugboat... "Here Tubboat!"

That's what they get for using pet dog names.

 

[jilbiker]

After reading chapter one of the book, I am convinced that teams should bear some responsibility with the doping. Each team management is fully aware of the doping and their tolerance or on-tolerance influences how their bikers will act, at least 90% of their bikers. At the same time team management faces financial pressure from sponsors after all biking is first a business and the bottomline is what is important. So just like in Wall street where rules are bent toachieve numbers and of course those who bend are rewarded with fat bonus so also what is the pressure to bend?? Its complex and it is not so simple for us to say to the bikers, stop doping! Bills have to paid and someone has to ride in a corporate jet or buy the latest masarati.

In short its about money. And just like folks think about their jobs, bikers also think about theirs,

 

[the big ring]

The way I read the WADA Code and the UCI's ADR, if UCI determines to turn it over to the national federation, that's their choice. Is your statement that they "NEVER" prosecute really so? But the UCI's ADR does not make that mandatory, and UCI can exercise jurisdiction in the first instance if that organization first discovered the instance of a violation. Like I said, it's a subtle difference. Just because a particular protocol has been followed in the past and is usual course of conduct in such matters does not mean it's the only protocol that MUST be followed in every case. Now if you can cite me a provision from the WADA Code or the UCI's ADR that says the NGB or Federation must take the case first even if UCI is the body that initially makes the discovery of doping, I'd love to see that.

Even easier: if you can show me the protocol where UCI conduct the arbitration proceedings, I will believe you.

USADA have AAA style "rules of engagement" with athletes. To wit:

USADA has developed and instituted an adjudication program that is fair and credible when an athlete is found to be in violation of anti-doping rules and regulations. USADA's adjudication process relies on an American Arbitration Association (AAA)/Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) arbitrated hearing under modified AAA Commercial Rules.

Show me anywhere, where this is true for UCI, and you will have your victory.

Why else did UCI have to create some new fang-dangled "independent panel" for the first time in the history of the UCI to examine USADA's evidence to determine whether the case against the 71 VO2 max doper Lance Armstrong should proceed or not?

A panel for which there was NO PROCESS for creating it or handling it.

Now if you can cite me a provision from the WADA Code or the UCI's ADR that says the NGB or Federation must take the case first even if UCI is the body that initially makes the discovery of doping, I'd love to see that.

What is your understanding of the following?

249. When, following the results management process described in chapter VII, the UCI makes an assertion
that a License-Holder committed an anti-doping rule violation, it shall notify the License-Holder’s
National Federation and request it to instigate disciplinary proceedings. It shall also send a copy of
the test analysis report and/or other documentation. A copy of the request may be sent to the
License-Holder and/or the License-Holder’s club or team.
A copy of the request is sent to WADA and to the License-Holder’s National Anti-Doping Organization.

Because it looks pretty friggin' obvious to me.

Honestly.

Oh, and in case you still don't get it. The USAC (National Federation) automatically hands the case to the USADA. Not back to the UCI. That would just be ***.

A lawyer? Seriously? I should have done law. This is too simple.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

It's not an "accusation" at all It's simply a point of reference.

'...' The bolded line just seems like such a throwaway, so gratuitous, and so calculated to plant in the mind of the reader the false notion that USADA has jurisdiction over all doping charges, no matter where they arise or who does the initial testing. And that's just not the case under the WADA Code or the UCI's ADR.

I'm guessing this is coming from Coyle and not Hamilton. I find it just as bad as the silly PR stuff Armstrong's people engage in; this is just a lot more subtle, but still just as wrong IMHO.

To me, this statement looked like you are accusing Hamilton and Coyle of being most disingenuous. In fact I can't really see how it is not an accusation but a point of reference??

I think you are certainly riight when you say that in most instances UCI turns over the results to the national body. But I do not think they are required to do so under the UCI's ADR (and the provisions also give UCI the initial jurisdiction for "results management"-- which actually has a meaning different than simply interpreting the data, but which also includes the imposition of sanctions, including forfeitures, stripping of prizes and money-- which does not conflict witht the WADA Code either).

I do appreciate though your response, and understand how things are "usually" done. I'm just saying that I don't think the WADA Code or UCI ADR requires that things be done this way in every instance. And that's what the passage in the book implies, and I think it's not a correct statement. That's all.

I accept the bolder bit and, to some extent, think it is a pity this wasn't tested as it might be that the code needs tightening up in this regarard. What I'm saying is that, since the process Hamilton and Coyle describe is the only process Hamilton knows to exist, I think it is a bit harsh to suggest deliberate misinformation when it is more likely that he simply doesn't undersatnd that there might be some procedural legal wiggle room.

Edit: The part of UCI ADR that big ring quotes does appear to be unambiguous.

 

[the big ring]

IANAL, but "SHALL" sure sounds stronger than "MIGHT EVERY NOW AND THEN IF THEY REALLY HAD A BAD DAY".

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/05/shall-vs-will.html

Shall
Did you know that "shall" is the most misused word in all of legal language? It is. In the current edition of Words and Phrases, "shall" alone is followed by 109 pages of case squibs, and "shall" phrases cover 45 more pages. Yet its misuse is one of the most heavily repeated errors in all of law.

...

To correctly use "shall," confine it to the meaning "has a duty to" and use it to impose a duty on a capable actor. Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 940–941 (2d ed., Oxford U. Press 1995). Here's how:

Lessee shall sell the remaining oil . . .

In other words--

Lessee [an actor capable of carrying out an obligation] shall [has a duty to] sell the remaining oil . . .

249. When, following the results management process described in chapter VII, the UCI makes an assertion that a License-Holder committed an anti-doping rule violation, it (the UCI) shall notify the License-Holder’s National Federation and request it to instigate disciplinary proceedings.

thus becomes

249. When, following the results management process described in chapter VII, the UCI makes an assertion that a License-Holder committed an anti-doping rule violation, it (the UCI) HAS A DUTY TO notify the License-Holder’s National Federation and request it to instigate disciplinary proceedings.

Completely unambiguous.


Man this law stuff is easy to get right.

Man alive QuickStepper just got called out. A lawyer? Puhlease.

 

[python]

It's was an honest observation .......

Perhaps so. Yet it was an erroneous one, and more importantly an ignorant one, nevertheless.

Your claims of being an experienced, highly paid lawyer seem inadequate in light of the mistakes made. Most legal professionals I have dealt with,
even the adversarial ones, research much much before shooting.

You seem to demonstrate both, the lack of knowledge wrt doping results management history and the wada protocol.

 

[Darryl Webster]

After reading chapter one of the book, I am convinced that teams should bear some responsibility with the doping. Each team management is fully aware of the doping and their tolerance or on-tolerance influences how their bikers will act, at least 90% of their bikers. At the same time team management faces financial pressure from sponsors after all biking is first a business and the bottomline is what is important. So just like in Wall street where rules are bent toachieve numbers and of course those who bend are rewarded with fat bonus so also what is the pressure to bend?? Its complex and it is not so simple for us to say to the bikers, stop doping! Bills have to paid and someone has to ride in a corporate jet or buy the latest masarati.

In short its about money. And just like folks think about their jobs, bikers also think about theirs,

Absalutly spot on every level of the sport from fan to sponsors has an incentive to dope/deny doping. When I say "fan" I mean the type of fan who has to see "bigger, faster ,stronger" rather than the ones who are happy to settle for a damn good race and may the best man on the day cross the line first no matter how long it takes.

 

[MarkvW]

IANAL, but "SHALL" sure sounds stronger than "MIGHT EVERY NOW AND THEN IF THEY REALLY HAD A BAD DAY".

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/wschiess/legalwriting/2005/05/shall-vs-will.html






thus becomes


Completely unambiguous.


Man this law stuff is easy to get right.

Man alive QuickStepper just got called out. A lawyer? Puhlease.

But even lawyers make mistakes. That's why we have lawyers.

Good find. I was looking in the UCI Rules and couldn't find anything.

 

[the big ring]

Good find. I was looking in the UCI Rules and couldn't find anything.

Thanks. It's the first time I have ever read the UCI rules. I looked at the index on page 2 and saw:

Chapter IX RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING

and looked at what the documented procedure was. Seemed pretty straight forward.

But even lawyers make mistakes. That's why we have lawyers.

If QS had have accepted the first post disagreeing with him, or at least entertained the idea he might be wrong, I'd pay that. But he persisted, without consulting the UCI ADR, claiming knowledge of both WADA code and UCI ADR.

It took me longer to downloade the PDF than it did to find the appropriate section.

Noone understands the UCI ADR and the WADA code in their entirety well enough to argue anything, and would need to consult it. What we do have, is gut feel and precedence, both of which QS ignored when pointed out to him. His argument was based solely on claimed knowledge.

The tenor of QS's posts are mostly pro-Armstrong, anti-Chewbacca and "don't question me I'm a lawyer with 30 years experience". This was one more piece of a jigsaw puzzle that paints a picture different to the one he attempts to portray.