USADA - Armstrong

[Berzin]

One would have to ask if they were to wrestle control of the proceedings how would the UCI handle it?

The evidence would never be made public.

The UCI will essentially kill the investigation by postponing any hearing until no one cares anymore.

What will be released is the list of those who testified, who will then be marginalized out of existence if they attempt to work in cycling in any capacity.

Armstrong will harass the witnesses for mere sport, knowing full well their testimony isn't going to get him sanctioned.

Lance Armstrong would ride into the sunset, credibility intact.

 

[krebs303]

 

[70kmph]

"What is strange is in 2010 McQuaid asked USADA to investigate along with other national federations."

Points to preferential treatment for one rider, nothing new since 1999- its a smokescreen

 

[Merckx index]

Originally Posted by Phat McQuaid
However, if USADA would not accept to entrust results management to an independent person or body then we suggest that USADA and UCI submit the issue of jurisdiction for results management to CAS.

LA has had that option all along. He can opt to skip the USADA arbitration and go right to CAS. Assuming his lawsuit is dismissed, that might be his best option. I assume at CAS he could more easily bring up matters like jurisdiction that don't have to be taken seriously at the USADA hearing. At the very least, going right to CAS will ensure that LA doesn’t lose this case more than once.

What is strange is in 2010 McQuaid asked USADA to investigate along with other national federations.

Yes, and let’s not forget that not long ago LA “welcomed” a USADA investigation to clear him. He sure seemed to think then that USADA has the authority to do that, and that if it cleared him the decsion would be meaningful.

 

[Stueyy]

Did he not know the letters would become public? Why was he saying differently in public?

Possibly because he realises it could well result in jail time for him...

 

[FabulousCandelabra]

I want to see the lot of them rotting in a jail cell!!! Seriously these guys are vile scum, two decades of sporting fraud!! I want real justice! I can't stand the thought of these guys living poshly in their mansions once this is all over... ugh barf! I wish I could see Paddy speaking in public and shout at him like that hag shouted at the princess in Princess Bride!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Looks like the net is closing tightly on Mr McQuaid - he's looking more and more like Rebecca Brooks every day

I don't know about that.

They have dodged hailstorms of bullets before as if it were a movie. They are in a role where they have made stuff up to try to shut it down and that's entirely within their authority.

If the story reaches Mass Media with the general spin being the unapologetic corruption, then it might bother the IOC a bit. But, I don't think any media outlet can afford to do a critical story on the IOC, which is where the dope-friendly stance and widespread corruption originates.

I am still amazed at the effort that Pat is going to cover for Wonderboy. It's as if Hein sold Wiesel 50.1% of the UCI.

 

[hektoren]

All of the latest brouhaha pertains to that magical date in an Austin courtroom, 10th of August, and the mindset of one judge capable of shutting down the LA-case once and for all. USADA in all awe, Travis Tygart you can use me as a complimentary doormat for a year if you pull this one through, but my personal experience of the US judicial system is that money walks everyday.

The UCI/Phat McQuack stunt of late is, on one level, despicable to say the least, but in legal terms just what a judge might feel obligated to adhere to, come judgment day. I believe LA will walk, but I'll put on a free fireworks show if he doesn't.

 

[Viking]

This sport is beyond help. Whatever USADA have found and will found, UCI are preparing to shut them down.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-claims-usada-has-no-jurisdiction-in-armstrong-case

Just a gut feeling here, but I suspect UCI realized who the real target of the whole USADA investigation is. It isn't LA. USADA has stated many times that every rider and former rider, except one, that they wanted to talk to cooperated completely. They're only going after LA because he wouldn't help bring down the corrupt UCI. Going after LA puts all of the UCI's involvement in the limelight.

Of course, that's a lot of conjecture and wishful thinking

 

[DirtyWorks]

At the very least, going right to CAS will ensure that LA doesn’t lose this case more than once.

I think the UCI has some influence at CAS given the strange conclusion to the Contador case. CAS dreamed up another excuse describing it as a supplements accident with the best possible arrangement of the penalty as the final outcome.

 

[thehog]

Just a gut feeling here, but I suspect UCI realized who the real target of the whole USADA investigation is. It isn't LA. USADA has stated many times that every rider and former rider, except one, that they wanted to talk to cooperated completely. They're only going after LA because he wouldn't help bring down the corrupt UCI. Going after LA puts all of the UCI's involvement in the limelight.

Of course, that's a lot of conjecture and wishful thinking

If I were LA my defense would be to admit doping. But state that because doping was allowed by the governing body he shouldn't be sanctioned.

 

[Epicycle]

I don't know about that.

They have dodged hailstorms of bullets before as if it were a movie. They are in a role where they have made stuff up to try to shut it down and that's entirely within their authority.

If the story reaches Mass Media with the general spin being the unapologetic corruption, then it might bother the IOC a bit. But, I don't think any media outlet can afford to do a critical story on the IOC, which is where the dope-friendly stance and widespread corruption originates.

I am still amazed at the effort that Pat is going to cover for Wonderboy. It's as if Hein sold Wiesel 50.1% of the UCI.

I just hope neither McQuaid nor Verbruggen is UCI president after the next election a year from now. Real reform at the top of the UCI would be a tremendously positive outcome.

 

[argyllflyer]

I see 'Juan Pelota' on twitter suggests 10.1 on UCI anti doping procedures:

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1

gives UCI control.

Not the way I read it though?

Doesn't it only suggest such a scenario if UCI discover the No Sample doping or as 10.2 says, another 'non doping' organisation discovers it?

As USADA seem to be the 'discoverers' in this case, point 11 seems to stand.

 

[the big ring]

I see 'Juan Pelota' on twitter suggests 10.1 on UCI anti doping procedures:

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/g...bjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1

gives UCI control.

Not the way I read it though?

Doesn't it only suggest such a scenario if UCI discover the No Sample doping or as 10.2 says, another 'non doping' organisation discovers it?

As USADA seem to be the 'discoverers' in this case, point 11 seems to stand.

Their argument is that

Landis sent a letter to USAC (come under UCI)
Letter accuses UCI etc
UCI ask national feds (USAC) to investigate
USAC directs USADA to investigate
USADA discovers --> USAC should turn this discovery over to UCI

at least that's my understanding of UCI's argument. I ain't no friggin' lawyer.

 

[argyllflyer]

Does that hold any sort of water?

 

[the big ring]

Does that hold any sort of water?

My reading of this thread leads me to believe there was information prior to Landis' letter that lead to USADA's investigation, therefore the investiagation and what was discovered in same is independent of the original UCI -> USAC -> UsADA "investigate Landis's claims" directive.

Again. It's all complicated and BS-like as only the law and lawyers can convolute BS in an attempt to make more money for themselves.

I ain't no effin lawyer.

 

[MarkvW]

I just hope neither McQuaid nor Verbruggen is UCI president after the next election a year from now. Real reform at the top of the UCI would be a tremendously positive outcome.

Don't hold your breath. Meet the new stooge; same as the old stooge.

 

[Merckx index]

Anna Zimmerman has come up with a highly counterintuitive explanation of UCI's demand to take over the case. Though it seems unlikely to me (and to her, I think), it certainly throws another wrinkle into the case:

…it wasn’t until I discovered this small little detail that I decided the entire thing was total, utter trash. Not the test results, but the entire system – the UCI’s anti-doping rules.

“Riders banned for outright doping violations are required to pay up to 70 percent of their salaries to the UCI as part of language introduced by the cycling federation to act as a deterring factor for would-be cheaters.”

What?! So the UCI not only has a financial incentive in soliciting sponsors to fund the sport, they also have a financial incentive to find the highest-paid riders guilty of doping too? This is just overwhelming and so fundamentally unfair to me that I can’t even fathom the realm of malicious possibilities. So before we write Mr. McQuaid off as having a soft-spot for Mr. Armstrong with no serious interest in pursuing the allegations against him, let’s consider how much money the UCI stands to collect if Mr. Armstrong is banned for “outright doping violations.”…

The USADA, like CAS, receives no financial compensation if Mr. Armstrong is found guilty to any degree. I think the UCI will still be entitled to the 70% fine if the USADA bans Mr. Armstrong for “outright doping violations,” but the USADA has no incentive to include that specific language in the verdict. The UCI, however, has a multi-million Euro incentive to hear the case and, if found guilty, to ensure the ban is for “outright doping violations.” In honor of the conspiracy theory and the devil’s advocate, maybe the UCI’s become aware of how solid the USADA’s case is and they want the glory of convicting cycling’s most famous hero, as well as certainty that the language yields a huge payoff to them.

http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.com/

 

[spalco]

^^
I'm not buying it.

 

[sashimono]

I bet the UCI is trading in that urine tester Lance gave them for a paper shredder.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Anna Zimmerman has come up with a highly counterintuitive explanation of UCI's demand to take over the case. Though it seems unlikely to me (and to her, I think), it certainly throws another wrinkle into the case:




http://150wattsofawesome.blogspot.com/

Except that, as far as I know they have never collected from anyone.

 

[MarkvW]

Their argument is that

Landis sent a letter to USAC (come under UCI)
Letter accuses UCI etc
UCI ask national feds (USAC) to investigate
USAC directs USADA to investigate
USADA discovers --> USAC should turn this discovery over to UCI

at least that's my understanding of UCI's argument. I ain't no friggin' lawyer.

The UCI isn't presenting an argument. They're presenting a pretext.

The ball is in USADA's court. I assume, given the tone of the UCI's letter, that USADA is going to defy the UCI.

This is the cue for Armstrong's buddies in USA Cycling to get involved and order USADA to stop. If USAC refuses, then UCI is a toothless tiger and we can laugh at Fat Cat.

If USAC orders USADA to back off, then it gets really interesting because USADA is only acting on behalf of USA Cycling (as far as I can tell). Perhaps this is when the Olympic Committee comes into play.

 

[the big ring]

The UCI isn't presenting an argument. They're presenting a pretext.

The ball is in USADA's court. I assume, given the tone of the UCI's letter, that USADA is going to defy the UCI.

This is the cue for Armstrong's buddies in USA Cycling to get involved and order USADA to stop. If USAC refuses, then UCI is a toothless tiger and we can laugh at Fat Cat.

If USAC orders USADA to back off, then it gets really interesting because USADA is only acting on behalf of USA Cycling (as far as I can tell). Perhaps this is when the Olympic Committee comes into play.

I don't want to get into a pretext with you, but as I already stated, I ain't no lawyer, and you understand what I mean when I say, "their argument is".

Very curious. I started reading the Copenhagen thing and the WADA code but lawyer talk is more boring than an accountant's conference.

Who has stronger backing "powers": WADA, or USAC? Could WADA support USADA beyond the potential USAC "backoff" to see the arbitration through?

 

[the big ring]

Except that, as far as I know they have never collected from anyone.

From memory it was shown to be unenforceable?

 

[MarkvW]

I don't want to get into a pretext with you, but as I already stated, I ain't no lawyer, and you understand what I mean when I say, "their argument is".

Very curious. I started reading the Copenhagen thing and the WADA code but lawyer talk is more boring than an accountant's conference.

Who has stronger backing "powers": WADA, or USAC? Could WADA support USADA beyond the potential USAC "backoff" to see the arbitration through?

I didn't mean to start an argument.

I was meaning to say that the UCI isn't going to get into an argument with anyone. They are doing something and the rest of the world can take it or leave it. By "pretext," I just meant that they are covering their naked corruption with a fig leaf of bad reasoning.