Maxiton said:
The problem is it appears to work the other way around. Team Wonderboy owns Pat and Hein. Now if only they can sell that without firing off a perjury trial.
Don't think they won't try.
-
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
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
- Status
The problem is it appears to work the other way around. Team Wonderboy owns Pat and Hein. Now if only they can sell that without firing off a perjury trial.
Don't think they won't try.
thehog said:
Right.... an independent review that the UCI defines and controls, such that it really isn't an independent review at all other than how it will be packaged up afterwards for the consumption by the masses.
Cue up Vrijman report v2.0 with whatever paid shill(s) they invent this time as the supposedly independent body in their ongoing "Never never land" saga.
thehog
BANNED
DirtyWorks said:
It's a press conference:
McQuaid asked if it's a WADA/USADA witch hunt against Armstrong: "Yep. And they’re prepared to bend rules to ensure that it’s done."
thehog said:
So now Paddy has finally come right out and said WADA is carrying out a witch hunt and is breaking it's own rules. That should go over well...
ETA: There goes the problem of USADA not being able to fund a protracted battle with Liestrong.
python said:
Why grant it now? If the original 30 days wasn’t long enough, why didn’t they allow a longer extension?
I thought the premise of the 30 day extension was that it gave LA time to file his argument about jurisdiction, get the response, and make his decision about how to proceed from there accordingly. Did USADA underestimate the time that would take, or did LA’s team purposely wait till the last moment to file? If the latter, were they assuming they would be granted another extension?
I admit to not being a lawyer, but it seems like this extension game can go on for a long time. Assume Sparks rules before August 23, against LA, and LA appeals. Then USADA will have to grant him yet another extension, won’t they? And if the appeal goes somewhat the same way the Sparks process has gone, won’t that mean yet another extension after filing, to give the new judge time to come to a decision?
And if that decision goes against LA, and he appeals higher up…?
What is to stop USADA from saying the hell with it, you’ve had enough chances, no more extensions? Just their desire to appear fair? Or does it complicate their situation? An end to granting extensions wouldn’t stop LA from appealing, it would just mean that he would have to do it after having accepted the sanctions, or while preparing to go to arbitration. Is USADA concerned that if arbitration began while LA was still in the process of some appeal, that that would affect the outcome?
If Sparks ruled in favor of LA, and specifically accepted UCI's arguments about jurisdiction, it would be the only thing USADA could do, wouldn't it? Not saying this is likely, but it's certainly possible. I guess they could challenge the ruling, but would they really want to get sidetracked on that issue before they could even proceed with LA's case?
I don’t know, but surely this could be worked out. Tygart could set up a meeting with McQ and other UCI officials. He would start by giving them more details of the evidence, without naming names, and ask them how likely it would be that UCI would agree to pursue the case. If UCI refused to give any kind of answer without all the files, Tygart would then ask them how long they would need to come to a decision, with access to all the files, on whether to pursue or not. If they were unwilling or unable to provide a definite time frame, he could simply terminate the meeting.
UCI is obviously dying to see these files, and I think would be willing to make concessions in order to do so. A major concession would be guaranteeing USADA that, if UCI declined to pursue the case, they would notify UCI within a fairly short, agreed-upon time, and following that, would not stand in the way of USADA appealing UCI’s decision. Including no further support of LA’s attempts to sick the law on USADA.
I realize all this is complicated by possible evidence that UCI protected LA, but we don't know how strong this evidence is. If it is nothing but the Saugy affair, then it will be extremely difficult I think for USADA to make a case against UCI. They might even use what evidence they have as a bargaining chip (or depending on how you look at it, blackmail!): they make a deal with Pat/UCI, drop the case against UCI in return for their cooperation against LA. Then it depends on how much LA has on the UCI. Again, lots of speculation here, but we really don't know.
Probably you're right, but this is a unique case. Conspiracy. Seven TdF titles at stake. Based almost entirely on witness testimony that occurred beyond the SOL. UCI certainly has a right to raise an eyebrow. And while one would expect in a normal relationship, they would give USADA the help it wants, you would also expect that USADA would ask them for their help. Until this latest letter when they requested certain files, it seems USADA never attempted to bring UCI into the process at all. If I were a UCI official, even if I were pristine clean in all my involvement with LA, I would be freaked by this turn of events.
thehog
BANNED
Maxiton said:
Thank Daniel Benson:
Asked McQuaid if he'd resign if USADA case damned UCI. Said he didn't recognise the question.
- We'll have to wait till these guys type up their notes and recordings. It only just completed.
MacRoadie said:
Remember the UCI vs Dick Pound suit? The reverse could be a lot more painful for UCI (EDIT: Fixed).
As for the request for an 'independent review', isn't that actually part of the USADA's SOP? They have already put this in front of an independent board that approved the doping/conspiracy charge.
However, WADA is going to jump all of this. Requesting an 'independent review' for the first time ever, on a specifically identified athlete basis is as obvious a case of preferential treatment as there could possibly be.
Why doesn't Fat Pat just say 'guilty'?
'Yes, the UCI has actively obstructed any anti-doping activity vis-a-vis Mr. Armstrong since the story of Festina broke. And, we fully intend to continue with this approach concerning Mr. Armstrong.'
(the last bit was action 'translated' into words)
Dave.
Merckx index said:
A denial of a motion to dismiss is not a directly appealable order. Only final orders are appealable, and an order denying a motion to dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b)(1) is not a final order in the case and would not result in an appealable judgment.
On the other hand, an order granting a motion to dismiss results in the entry of a final judgment of dismissal and as such, is directly appealable.
If the judge were to deny the USADA's motion to dismiss, the case will continue on and proceed either to a jury trial or it will be resolved by some other sort of dispostitive motion filed by one side or the other, e.g., a summary judgment motion.
ETA: There are actually some situations in which non-final, or "interlocutory" orders are directly appealable. For example, an order denying abritration is directly appealable, even though it's usually considered interlocutory. Because the motion to dismiss is also brought pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, and a denial of the motion to dismiss could effectively result in a denial of the arbitration, it is conceivable (and probably likely) that if Judge Sparks were to deny the motion to dismiss, USADA would try to directly appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on this ground (and several others). But the general rule is that appeals from interlocutory orders are only permitted in the rarest of circumstances and an appeal is typically not a matter of right.
Assuming USADA did appeal from an order denying the motion to dismiss, it is also likely that they would be painted into the corner of having to stay their own proceedings indefinitely, or at least until the appellate process runs its course. This is because when one appeals from an interlocutory order one must satisfy the test laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U.S. 495 (1989) that:
1.the outcome of the case would be conclusively determined by the issue;
2.the matter appealed is collateral to the merits; and
3.the matter is effectively unreviewable if immediate appeal were not allowed
The procedure is somewhat akin to a writ proceeding in state court, but not nearly as widely received in federal courts. Most appellate jurisdictions will grant a stay of the main case in which the order was made pending the appeal. Again, if that were to occur, and USADA were to seek a stay of the underlying case pending an appeal, it would be simply inconceivable that they would not likewise agree to stay their own proceedings, unless they were going to completely ignore the federal court process, and that would be extremely unlikely.
So, if Judge Sparks were to deny the motion to dismiss, USADA's remedies would be almost self-limiting and its not likely that any arbitration would proceed until the conclusion of Armstrong's federal lawsuit, including any appeals by either side, IMHO.
Maxiton said:
Very easy to link to twitter
https://en.twitter.com/dnlbenson/status/233993321318580226
1:55 PM, Austin time.
I'd love to be in that hallway outside Judge Sparks' courtroom...Bet you can cut the tension and animosity with a knife...
I'd love to be in that hallway outside Judge Sparks' courtroom...Bet you can cut the tension and animosity with a knife...
thehog said:
I truly can't believe he said this. gift wrapped one major PR talking point to the LA team. we will see this time and time again
thehog said:
That clinches it. Time for Baghdad Bob to step down. I think McQuaid needs a nickname. Agile Andy? Ian IOC? Agile Andy says "Everything is fine. UCI is not involved. Armstrong's case will be examined... Never. USADA has gone rogue..."
According to this, https://twitter.com/nealrogers/status/233998850807963648
one of the UCI's more glaring inconsistencies, Valverde, did not come up. The friendly press audience should come as no surprise.
thehog said:
The end result of USADA's actions may virtually destroy the UCI's "product" as it currently exists. It's not a surprise that McQ is deploying anything he can now. Without access to USADA's evidence, he has to assume that it's strong enough to cause huge ripples on several levels within the sport, and so he may not see himself as having anything to lose by going all in.
Just like USADA is fighting for its own ongoing relevance, since a bad loss here will render them wholly ineffective for many other future cases. If the precedents are set it won't take other athletes nearly as much in resources/cost to achieve a similar outcome in future.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 986
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Started by Logic-is-your-friend
- Replies: 752
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram