USADA - Armstrong

[MacRoadie]

Armstrong adds to the toilet clog.

Just filed this morning:

August 17 Brief

 

[hektoren]

Just filed this morning:

August 17 Brief

Same old, same old. Blah, blah, USADA no jurisdiction, blah, blah, our boy simply doesn't want to respond whatsoever, blah, blah, USADA may have conclusive evidence but it's irrelevant.
Depressing reading on an otherwise happy friday-night!

 

[thehog]

Just filed this morning:

August 17 Brief

Scary! Almost as if it was written in crayon...

 

[hektoren]

Gotta love the Armageddon scene depicted by LA-lawyers though: "the world-wide anti-doping system would not work, and would dissolve into chaos and uncertainty, if multiple bodies could claim to have authority over the same matter. "
How scary!

 

[Kennf1]

And now we have an August 17 letter from USAC to USADA, issued a day after McQuaid's August 16 request to USAC. That's a well trained dog.

 

[thehog]

Gotta love the Armageddon scene depicted by LA-lawyers though: "the world-wide anti-doping system would not work, and would dissolve into chaos and uncertainty, if multiple bodies could claim to have authority over the same matter. "
How scary!

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103153930/Pat-Whistles-USAC-Jumps

UCI and USAC letters

What a mess

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Gotta love the Armageddon scene depicted by LA-lawyers though: "the world-wide anti-doping system would not work, and would dissolve into chaos and uncertainty, if multiple bodies could claim to have authority over the same matter. "
How scary!

Sparks has to know he is guilty based on their frantic efforts to shut this down, rather than letting him prove his innocence......but now he is torn between choosing the truth or plunging the world of doping control into the abyss of confusion.

 

[Animal]

Extraordinary lengths to go to if in fact you just didn't do it

 

[MacRoadie]

From the most recent McQuaid letter:

it is UCI that discovered the violation and the sample results that USADA invokes are all results from samples taken by the UCI.

Hmmmmm

 

[python]

I read armstrong submittal quickly...still no mention of the usada jurisdiction under us Olympic comitty . Did I miss it?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And here is McQuaids letter to USAC.

It really is quite embarrassing.

The fact that USADA may have a different view of UCI's rules as USADA claimed during the hearing is irrelevant: if UCI decides that they cannot proceed under UCI rules USADA cannot proceed, whatever USADA's views on UCI's rules may be. In addition USA Cycling and therefore USADA are bound by UCI's interpretation of its rules.

Thanks to RR on twitter.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103153930/Pat-Whistles-USAC-Jumps

 

[the big ring]

Can't type too well right now - eyes bleeding from reading that repetitive pile of cow manure, but seriously. Was there a shred of anything new in there, or was it entirely SSDD?

 

[MacRoadie]

And here is McQuaids letter to USAC.

It really is quite embarrassing.



Thanks to RR on twitter.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103153930/Pat-Whistles-USAC-Jumps

Something about rules?

 

[goober]

Sparks has to know he is guilty based on their frantic efforts to shut this down, rather than letting him prove his innocence......but now he is torn between choosing the truth or plunging the world of doping control into the abyss of confusion.

No he is not torn between the truth or plunging the world of doping. Has nothing to do with that - he is not involved in the 'truth' part.

 

[goober]

Can't type too well right now - eyes bleeding from reading that repetitive pile of cow manure, but seriously. Was there a shred of anything new in there, or was it entirely SSDD?

It was actually pretty good and a very important judgement needs to be made by Sparks.

 

[the big ring]

Here's the crux of it. Footnote #6 on page 9

USADA cannot presume that there will be an arbitration in any event. If UCI concludes, followingan independent panel’s review of the alleged evidence, that no charges should be brought, there maynever be any arbitration in this matter

 

[zigmeister]

Same old, same old. Blah, blah, USADA no jurisdiction, blah, blah, our boy simply doesn't want to respond whatsoever, blah, blah, USADA may have conclusive evidence but it's irrelevant.
Depressing reading on an otherwise happy friday-night!

So what does give them jurisdiction? Was any of the testing done they claim to have evidence of "indications of doping" performed by them?

Or is it just Tyler, Floyd and the usual suspects claiming to have "heard" or "somebody told them" they saw Lance use doping products?

The issue is, Lance's team are making the claim of no jurisdiction by USADA, and since they refuse to reveal their "evidence", what is one supposed to make of the entire situation as a defendant? If USADA indeed has proof/evidence by way of testing and evidence of doping under their control as part of the a program Lance was bound to....OK then..have at it. But, it still remains a mystery what they do/don't have as evidence. But I will bet dollars to donuts, it is the same old crap that didn't fly with the Feds grand jury experiment.

 

[the big ring]

When USADA replies, we should know for sure.

 

[Race Radio]

It was actually pretty good and a very important judgement needs to be made by Sparks.

Could you point out the good parts?

 

[frenchfry]

Maybe I am missing something here, but since when has UCI directly managed and judged doping cases. It seems to me that they were systematically referred to the national body of the rider concerned. Does the UCI even have a sanctioning process like USADA?

And if the UCI does indeed have a process to judge doping infractions, why didn't they do so for such high profile cases like Landis or Contador, who were both judged by their national bodies then CAS. And especially Valverde, who was suspended by CONI confirmed by CAS. Also, in these cases the national bodies weren't the ones who did the testing leading to the infraction.

This is all pretty weird, and the UCI's position is difficult to understand, except of course that they appear ready to do anything to make this disappear even at the risk of presenting totally illogical arguements.

Can anyone help me understand these issues?

 

[Race Radio]

So what does give them jurisdiction? Was any of the testing done they claim to have evidence of "indications of doping" performed by them?

Or is it just Tyler, Floyd and the usual suspects claiming to have "heard" or "somebody told them" they saw Lance use doping products?

The issue is, Lance's team are making the claim of no jurisdiction by USADA, and since they refuse to reveal their "evidence", what is one supposed to make of the entire situation as a defendant? If USADA indeed has proof/evidence by way of testing and evidence of doping under their control as part of the a program Lance was bound to....OK then..have at it. But, it still remains a mystery what they do/don't have as evidence. But I will bet dollars to donuts, it is the same old crap that didn't fly with the Feds grand jury experiment.

This has been covered over, and over, and over

Please, read this

http://www.scribd.com/doc/102387437/USADA-Reply-for-Dismissal

and this
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102124068/102034896-42-2-USADA-Letter-to-Pat-McQuaid-Dated-26-July-2012

tell us why USADA is wrong

 

[Race Radio]

Maybe I am missing something here, but since when has UCI directly managed and judged doping cases. It seems to me that they were systematically referred to the national body of the rider concerned. Does the UCI even have a sanctioning process like USADA?

And if the UCI does indeed have a process to judge doping infractions, why didn't they do so for such high profile cases like Landis or Contador, who were both judged by their national bodies then CAS. And especially Valverde, who was suspended by CONI confirmed by CAS. Also, in these cases the national bodies weren't the ones who did the testing leading to the infraction.

This is all pretty weird, and the UCI's position is difficult to understand, except of course that they appear ready to do anything to make this disappear even at the risk of presenting totally illogical arguements.

Can anyone help me understand these issues?

The UCI has never interfered with a doping case like this. Never

 

[goober]

Could you point out the good parts?

Every single paragraph. I did not say it was all necessarily correct - but these types of challenges are very important in the courts and the result will be applied outside of cycling. You have to follow this part of the drama with blinders on whether Lance doped or not. This part of the saga has nothing to do with that...

 

[frenchfry]

The UCI has never interfered with a doping case like this. Never

But have they managed one? For example, in the same manner that USADA managed the Landis case.