USADA - Armstrong

[Trailzz]

The triathlon ban will finish him. And his reputation in claiming 7-time winner will make him a joke.

He is far from done with triathlon. There are lots of races where he isn't banned. My bet is he is busy putting profitable deals in place before he just shows up at a non-WTC event.

 

[BroDeal]

He is far from done with triathlon. There are lots of races where he isn't banned. My bet is he is busy putting profitable deals in place before he just shows up at a non-WTC event.

There are rumors that he will start his own series.

Rev 3 or Challenge would probably pay him big bucks.

 

[Trailzz]

There are rumors that he will start his own series.

Rev 3 or Challenge would probably pay him big bucks.

Absolutely - he even hinted at it himself. He has options in the triathlon world.

 

[therhodeo]

Absolutely - he even hinted at it himself. He has options in the triathlon world.

And any culture that celebrates people ****ing themselves in the middle of races is probably dumb enough to welcome him with open arms.

 

[thehog]

He's toxic. No one will go near him.

Also after USADA there's loads more fun to come. It's only just begun.

 

[MarkvW]

Agreed.

Just posted this on the McQuaid thread.




Dave.

A petition to USA Cycling, from a large chunk of license holders telling it to hang tough . . .

 

[Cerberus]

Lance is probably hoping one of his options is that even if USADA strips him of his titles, the UCI and TDF don't recognize USADA's outcome. Then he can still argue he wasn't truly sanctioned. Is that possible?

I don't think so, I think enough of the evidence will be leaked that ASo and others cant with a straight face insist that there's no evidence.

 

[red_flanders]

I found this interesting that USADA plans to call then UCI to provide evidence:

Mr. Armstrong’s payments to the UCI create a further conflict of interest for the UCI. In addition, given that there exists evidence that the payments relate to evidence and claims in these very cases it is apparent that the UCI may be called upon to provide evidence in the eventual arbitration hearing. For this reason as well the UCI is foreclosed from participating in the results management of Mr. Armstrong’s case.

Sounds pretty confident they can prove these payments. Very interesting.

 

[the big ring]

Did someone post the link to this letter yet?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102034896/42-2-USADA-letter-to-Pat-McQuaid-dated-26-July-2012

This is the USADA argument against UCI claiming prima nocta* due to their receiving the Flandis letter via USAC:

You claim that UCI has exclusive results management jurisdiction over these cases because the “discovery” of these anti-doping rule violations occurred with Floyd Landis’s email of April 30, 2012. That assertion is simply not correct. First, even focusing on Mr. Landis’s email, USADA’s receipt of that email was not the first evidence it received from Mr. Landis. Second, it is preposterous for UCI to claim that the Landis email resulted in it discovering “evidence of facts that apparently constitute an anti-doping rule violation” (UCI ADR, art. 10) when, as described in detail below, UCI’s response to the Landis email was to vehemently deny the truth of his evidence. UCI even went so far as to sue Mr. Landis in Swiss court on account of that email. Having publicly asserted that Mr. Landis’s evidence is false, UCI has abdicated any authority to conduct results management based on that evidence. Third, the facts alleged by Mr. Landis are not the first facts, nor are they even close to being the only facts, upon which USADA’s cases against the Respondents are based. As USADA’s notice and charging letters of June 12 and June 28, 2012 make clear, the information provided to USADA by Mr. Landis (which goes far beyond the contents of the April 30, 2010 email) is just a small fragment of the evidence of the numerous anti-doping rule violation that were committed by the Respondents.

 

[filipo]

No doubt about that. Apply the domino theory here. Lance's laundry will finally be aired. Then the UCI's. And that will either force the Hein (and the IOC) to throw cycling under the bus, or rush to their (not "our") rescue and subject both of them to the same reputation-thrashing.

No offense, BB, but we've been hearing the same shii for at least a couple of years now. This is the real end of Lance -- no, now everything's going to come out -- no no, NOW...

I hate to say it, but I'll believe it when I see it. Sad state of affairs.

 

[filipo]

"The old get old
And the young get stronger
May take a week
And it may take longer
They got the guns
But we got the numbers
Gonna win, yeah
We're takin' over
Come on! "

"Watch out
We run New York"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAnGnevKxJE

A little more appropriate...

 

[AussieGoddess]

Im a little confused

so - the UCI is stating that IT has jurisdiction and that USADA cannot investigate or take action against athletes under its ADR ... that only the UCI can do that.

But

The UCI process once it opens a case is - to refer it to the national governing body, in this case - USADA. Isnt that what it actually did already in 2010 ?

So - the UCI directed USADA to investigate, but now its not happy with the fact that they laid charges, so the UCI wants to do what exactly? review the case and decide for itself if charges should be laid?

and if they decide they should be ... refer it back to USADA? or bypass USADA and go directly to CAS because USADA are just mean and have a vendetta against their favorite champion?

 

[the big ring]

Im a little confused

so - the UCI is stating that IT has jurisdiction and that USADA cannot investigate or take action against athletes under its ADR ... that only the UCI can do that.

But

The UCI process once it opens a case is - to refer it to the national governing body, in this case - USADA. Isnt that what it actually did already in 2010 ?

So - the UCI directed USADA to investigate, but now its not happy with the fact that they laid charges, so the UCI wants to do what exactly? review the case and decide for itself if charges should be laid?

and if they decide they should be ... refer it back to USADA? or bypass USADA and go directly to CAS because USADA are just mean and have a vendetta against their favorite champion?

That's outlined in USADA's letter.

* if UCI say there is no case, USADA would still bring a case against LA et al to CAS
* if UCI says there is a case, they would send it back to USADA anyway

so why not just leave it alone...

 

[the big ring]

Dumbfounded. Finally.

For instance, at the time in 2010 when Mr. Landis publicly raised his allegations of Mr. Armstrong’s doping, in an Associated Press article you stated that Mr. Landis’ allegations in his April 30, 2010 email were “nothing new” and that, “he already made those accusations in the past.” It is, therefore, shocking to us that you are now making the inconsistent claim that Mr. Landis’s allegations conferred results management authority upon the UCI under the UCI rules. It is frankly dumbfounding that the UCI now claims to have the authority to conduct results management on the basis of evidence which the UCI previously said that it had investigated, rejected and decided not to proceed upon. By prejudging Mr. Landis’s evidence in the press, whatever results management authority the UCI may have had to consider his evidence has been abdicated.

 

[the big ring]

I thought Landis did a search in Swiss courts and found no case?

In response to Mr. Landis’s claims regarding a cover-up of Mr. Armstrong’s test results and alleged favoritism towards Armstrong, you, former UCI President Hein Verbruggen and the UCI have filed a defamation lawsuit against Mr. Landis in the Swiss courts.

 

[the big ring]

USADA's letter ends with 12 requests for info that can be summed up as

"give us all your dirty laundry, like you said you would".

 

[spalco]

Here are the UCI's Anti-Doping rules
http://t.co/PRXcP3Sg

Armstrong claims that rule 10 puts the UCI in charge of an investigation that has no sample.....but Armstrong's case does have several samples that USADA say indicate transfusions and EPO use.

Also look at 11. It says clearly that USADA has jurisdiction as they discovered it

Apparently one of the points Armstrong is trying to argue, is that the case was not discovered by USADA, but by the UCI by proxy via USA Cycling.

 

[musorowegudo]

USADA's letter ends with 12 requests for info that can be summed up as

"give us all your dirty laundry, like you said you would".

I have limited legal knowledge, but someone tell me please . . . What does it take to dissolve the current UCI board and bring in a new one . . Or further still dissolve the UCI and institute a new body? Senior members, please assist!

 

[Pastavore]

I have limited legal knowledge, but someone tell me please . . . What does it take to dissolve the current UCI board and bring in a new one . . Or further still dissolve the UCI and institute a new body? Senior members, please assist!

As BotanyBay posted further up thread, it is time for us all to start writing to our national federations ( Cycling Australia in my case) expressing our loss of confidence in the UCI, and demanding action. I'll post mine after I've composed it.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

The most funny thing imho is the UCI wanting 'the evidence'. Hell, take a look in the friggin' bio-passport of sir Lance
http://cdn-community2.livestrong.co...c981f7be-e46c-4245-aa9d-d61ae110a264.Full.jpg

and explain his rise in htc from 38 to 45 in june 2009. Or, explain his sudden rise of hct after the restday at the Tour 2009. Did he go on altitude training camp for one day?

Good to see USADA is holding ground.

I must say, Europian media is quite slow picking it up, this time.

 

[argyllflyer]

UCI statement:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci...&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

Following public statement made by USADA on the position of the UCI regarding the disciplinary proceedings it opened against six persons the UCI wants to clarify.

After the Federal Department of Justice dropped its investigation into alleged doping fraud within the US Postal Cycling team, USADA continues to allege that such conspiracy took place indeed with the participants having committed the most serious doping offences over some fifteen years of time.

When Floyd Landis formulated his accusations in an e-mail sent on 30 April 2010 to USA Cycling, a UCI member federation, the UCI asked several national federations to conduct investigations. This included USADA that was acting on behalf of USA Cycling.

The UCI received no other information from USADA than that it opened disciplinary proceedings against six respondents on 12 June 2012.

Three respondents were banned for life because they didn't respond or didn't respond in time to USADA's letter of accusation. USADA refused to provide UCI with evidence that these respondents received the letter of accusation in due time. In any case it is a matter of fact that these respondents didn't receive the case file with the alleged evidence that USADA claims to exist against them. Nevertheless USADA claims that these respondents have accepted to be banned for life. Yet it seems that these respondents were banned for life for not having reacted to a letter of USADA. Furthermore the evidence that USADA claims to exist against the respondents was not reviewed by a neutral instance.

Likewise none of the other respondents have seen the evidence that USADA claims to have collected. Two of them are expected to file their defence by 15August 2012, yet still don't know what is the evidence that USADA alleges to exist against them. It is amazing to see how USADA accuses the respondents of cover up whilst USADA refuses to reveal the evidence that it claims to exist.

According to the World Anti-Doping Code and UCI's Anti-Doping Rules that USADA claims to apply, the UCI is the authority having results management for this case. USADA claims that there are elements with vest results management authority in USADA, yet refuses to show what these elements are.

For the UCI it is clear that USADA claims an authority that it does not have and uses procedures that violate basic principles of due process.

The absence of any evidence that has been made available to the respondents and to the UCI, the fact that USADA has no results management jurisdiction in this case, the fact that USADA refuses to have its file assessed by an independent results management authority and the fact that USADA continues to claim in these circumstances publicly that a doping conspiracy has taken place indeed brings UCI to the conclusion that USADA has no respect for the rules and for the principles of due process. This raises great concern.

The UCI wants that the case is judged according to the rules, upon facts established on the basis of sound evidence and by a neutral instance, including in the stadium of results management. The UCI wants that justice is done. Justice cannot be done by violating rules on jurisdiction, with files that have been kept secret so far and results management proceedings that are not fair.

By having condemned the respondents in advance in public USADA has no option but to use all means to have its case pushed through. By having proclaimed itself as the representative of the millions who want to have a clean sport, USADA has made this case the one in which it cannot afford to lose its face or its very existence.

This is not a sound basis for justice to be done, not to the respondents, not to the whole of athletes in the world and not to the world of sports as a whole.

This is the reason why the UCI, although being the competent authority for this case, wants the case to be given in the hands of a third results management authority independent both from UCI and USADA.

That authority has to decide whether there is enough evidence for the case to proceed and for the respondents to have a case to answer, even if ultimately the merits of any disciplinary proceedings should be judged by an independent body as well. Indeed due process is required also for results management in order to protect athletes and other persons from being dragged into disciplinary proceedings without sufficient basis and without respect for the applicable rules.

 

[Ferminal]

As BotanyBay posted further up thread, it is time for us all to start writing to our national federations ( Cycling Australia in my case) expressing our loss of confidence in the UCI, and demanding action. I'll post mine after I've composed it.

I'm sure the Oceanian Representative on the UCI management committee will be happy to listen to your concerns.

Mike Turtur

Essentially I think most people in official positions will be in line with Pat. The best chance for action would probably come from Amaury and the top teams... maybe even the IOC.

 

[roundabout]

Yes. This is your average international sport federation where the guys in charge control the voting.

It's either breakaway, evidence that the current regime is corrupt or a very slim hope that a hand-picked successor might do things differently.

Oh, and I suppose there's Vaughters change from within approach.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Furthermore the evidence that USADA claims to exist against the respondents was not reviewed by a neutral instance.

So now the riddle is 'USADA is not a NEUTRAL instance'?

If the defendants do not accept the ban/inquiry, why not go to CAS instead of this mockery by the UCI mobsters?

 

[Stueyy]

The letter from the UCI made for a good laugh. The USADA have already claimed that the UCI have covered up evidence previously so they see the UCI as part of the big problem with doping in cycling and certainly won't allow for the UCI to squirm out of this. USADA have a vested interest in cleaning up cycling and are doing the right thing with looking at their own who most likely is the biggest doping cheat of our generation. It just happens that a corrupt UCI have knowingly allowed for this cheat to get away with it for years so their vested interest is to protect themselves and Armstrong by default. I applaud the USADA and hope MCQuaid and his croonies see jail time for their abuse of their positions.

The thing that really makes me laugh even more is that the UCI and McQuaid are allowing the same thing to happen all over again with Sky, talk about digging a deeper hole for yourselves...