USADA - Armstrong

[BigBoat]

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.

Many pro teams do not have confidence in the UCI. Its been this way for a long time.... Doesn't seem to make any damn difference though.

Would be very interesting if USADA/WADA found Lance guilty and the UCI didn't. A bit of a subjective result.

 

[Pastavore]

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.

Yeah, I kind of agree, but i think the more pressure that can be applied from the grass roots the better. And at least we theoretically have a basis for influencing the national feds, as opposed to ASO ( private company) and the top teams.

 

[jilbiker]

Many pro teams do not have confidence in the UCI. Its been this way for a long time.... Doesn't seem to make any damn difference though.

Would be very interesting if USADA/WADA found Lance guilty and the UCI didn't. A bit of a subjective result.

UCI makes cycling a joke of a sport. It is clearly corrupt, but then so is FIFA, so whats new. I think we all have to live with it, the FBI or some justice system cannot begin investigation of FIFA or UCI but it could have started something on Baseball so Baseball (which is an American body) had to do some kind of independent review of itself. FBI would probably have found a lot of garbage.

The AFLD lost confidence in UCI years back and it is interesting that the year AFLD took over testing at TDF we have plenty of positives. Other drug agencies have lost confidence in UCI. I strongly support the independent cycling network., although if the main sponsor of the idea is Bruyneel then I have major doubts about what will be created. Definitely sounds like frying pan to fire.

 

[thehog]

If you have 15 minutes then read USADAs letter to the UCI:

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

It makes excellent reading.

It's writen very clearly and has compelling points. It's in stark contrast to any of the Armstrong filings.

 

[Anonymous]

Gotta wonder how different this situation would be if Patrice Clerc was still at ASO.

 

[argyllflyer]

Apologies if already posted:

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/mcquaids-last-stand/

McQuaid's response to USADA, dated 3rd August 2012

 

[Catwhoorg]

If you have 15 minutes then read USADAs letter to the UCI:

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

It makes excellent reading.

It's writen very clearly and has compelling points. It's in stark contrast to any of the Armstrong filings.

Thanks for that.

Very interesting and well put together. USADA has better lawyers (and presumably cheaper ones too)

 

[argyllflyer]

Thanks for that.

Very interesting and well put together. USADA has better lawyers (and presumably cheaper ones too)

And McQuaid's response from 3rd August:

http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/08/mcquaids-last-stand/

 

[Benotti69]

Thanks for that.

Very interesting and well put together. USADA has better lawyers (and presumably cheaper ones too)

In house iirc.

 

[Merckx index]

Some impressions of the two letters, Bock (USADA) to McQuaid, and McQuaid’s response to Bock:

1. Why did UCI/McQ change its mind about jurisdiction, first saying it was not involved, now claiming it has responsibility for results management? Was it because of pressure from LA? What other reason could there be? Could McQ really be so dumb not to understand at first the rules of his own organization that he is now quoting? He looks rather pathetic trying to argue that regardless of what he initially said, it doesn’t matter.

2. The jurisdiction issue. USADA claims authority if no sample collection is involved. Fine. McQuaid puts forth the alternative argument about discovery, but if USADA really has evidence that precedes and goes beyond the Landis confession, then UCI has no response but to say that they haven’t seen that evidence. Presumably it will be presented in due course.

But what about the counter-argument that UCI did not sign on to USADA/WADA until August 2004? Does this negate USADA’s authority to bring charges over events prior to that date? USADA seems to be vulnerable here. I haven’t seen them offer an argument against this, though they may in the response to the filing that LA’s lawyers just made to Sparks.

Also, USADA seems to be leaving themselves open to the argument that any of their evidence that is based on sample collection, viz., the passport data, is not their jurisdiction. The only argument USADA offers against that is their claim about concurrent jurisdiction, that both UCI and an ADA can pursue a case. But they are clearly wrong about this. As the passage they quote states, “UCI may decide” to leave it up to the ADA. But UCI is deciding here not to leave it up to the ADA. McQuaid points this out in his letter to Bock. It seems to be one of the few places where McQuaid is on strong ground.

3. The conflict of interest argument. This is a very bold move by USADA, and McQuaid looks like a fool when his response, beyond trying to deny the facts UCI cites, says that even if there is a conflict of interest, it doesn’t change UCI’s precedence in jurisdiction? Hello? It doesn’t?

But this raises the stakes considerably, changing this from what was initially a civil proceeding to possibly a criminal one. That has to raise a flag for the judge. This is no longer just an ordinary conflict over a non-state actor’s rules, but potentially has much broader implications. He may feel that because of this the federal court does need to get involved. I understand why USADA brought it up, but it may complicate matters.

4. One of the most interesting points USADA makes is that even if UCI conducted an investigation and concluded no violation occurred, USADA could appeal to CAS, so it would end up in the same situation, anyway. I wonder if Sparks, noting this, will suggest to them that they take their case directly to CAS. That would seem the simplest way to resolve this issue. I wonder if USADA would object to this. If their evidence is as strong as they imply, they shouldn't be worried about losing at CAS. It's likely to go there, anyway, since assuming it goes to arbitration, the loser will almost certainly appeal to CAS.

 

[spetsa]

The 180 by McQuaid can only be due to one of two lines of thought.

1. Fat Pat and the UCI are desperate to keep quiet, the evidence that they know USADA has to implicate them along with LA.

2. Lance called Fat Pat and demanded help, threatening to expose them as being complicit if they did not.

Neither bodes well for McQuaid or the UCI. I smell breakaway league and U23's racing in the next Olympics. IOC will be done with cycling at a professional level.

 

[thehog]

Some impressions of the two letters, Bock (USADA) to McQuaid, and McQuaid’s response to Bock:

4. One of the most interesting points USADA makes is that even if UCI conducted an investigation and concluded no violation occurred, USADA could appeal to CAS, so it would end up in the same situation, anyway. I wonder if Sparks, noting this, will suggest to them that they take their case directly to CAS. That would seem the simplest way to resolve this issue. I wonder if USADA would object to this. If their evidence is as strong as they imply, they shouldn't be worried about losing at CAS. It's likely to go there, anyway, since assuming it goes to arbitration, the loser will almost certainly appeal to CAS.

Excellent analysis. I would add that this is not a dispute between the UCI and USADA but Armstrong filing against USADA. The UCI's involvement is in support of Armstrong's filing on jurisdiction.

The judge is not setteling a dispute for the UCI and USADA but judging whether Armstrong is being unfairly (in the eyes of the law) by USADAs arbitration process.

The biggest problem for the UCI and Armstrong is they don't conduct arbitration they only refer to national federation or CAS. Even if the UCI had jurisdiction they'd simply refer the case to the national federation (passport included).

 

[ClappinCheeks]

If you have 15 minutes then read USADAs letter to the UCI:

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

It makes excellent reading.

It's writen very clearly and has compelling points. It's in stark contrast to any of the Armstrong filings.

 

[Robert21]

Gotta wonder how different this situation would be if Patrice Clerc was still at ASO.

It is well to remember that Clerc lost his job after the direct intervention of McQuaid, almost certainly because, amongst other reasons, he didn't want Clerc's robust approach to doping causing any 'embarrassments' for Armstrong on his comeback.

The last of three shoes fell about an hour after the AFLD's invitation hit the wires. L'Equipe published official word that ASO director Patrice Clerc had been fired. The sports conglomerate owns the Tour, numerous other cycling races and sporting events, and L'Equipe itself.

Clerc deeply mistrusted the UCI and was loath to make peace after the two bodies severed ties earlier this year following ASO's exclusion of the Astana team from the Tour. UCI chief Pat McQuaid subsequently went over Clerc's head to the widow of the ASO founder, with skiing legend Jean-Claude Killy acting as a go-between. An accord that will bring organizers of the Tours of France, Italy and Spain back into the UCI fold was signed two weeks ago. Meanwhile, Marie-Odile Amaury has installed her 32-year-old son in Clerc's place -- for the time being.

"It's something I shouldn't comment on," McQuaid told ESPN.com Wednesday. "It's an internal Amaury decision. All I would say [to Clerc] is 'goodbye,' and you can read between the lines if you like."

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/c ... id=3621096

 

[Merckx index]

The judge is not setteling a dispute for the UCI and USADA but judging whether Armstrong is being unfairly (in the eyes of the law) by USADAs arbitration process.

Yes, I should have made that distinction. All these letters flying around, hard not to get confused!

But the two disputes seem very much entwined, as much of LA’s argument to Sparks is based on UCI ADR having precedence over USADA. The judge of course should not be saying anything about what UCI and USADA should do to settle their dispute. But maybe he could, as a way of dismissing LA’s suit, suggest that CAS would be the proper place to settle the issue of jurisdiction. And LA, of course, is free to take the case to CAS directly, rather than submit to USADA’s arbitration. Really, the more I think about this, the more I think it should go to CAS directly, saving everyone a lot of time and money. I can’t believe the loser of the arbitration would not appeal.

The biggest problem for the UCI and Armstrong is they don't conduct arbitration they only refer to national federation or CAS. Even if the UCI had jurisdiction they'd simply refer the case to the national federation (passport included).

If they had jurisdiction, they wouldn’t refer it to any place. McQ makes that point very clear. So again, we come back to USADA appealing to CAS. All roads lead there now.

I now see that is USADA’s ace in the hole. Regardless of who has jurisdiction, they do have the right to take the case to CAS. The only argument McQ had against that is that it wasn't proceeding in the proper order, but that is nothing.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

The 180 by McQuaid can only be due to one of two lines of thought.

1. Fat Pat and the UCI are desperate to keep quiet, the evidence that they know USADA has to implicate them along with LA.

2. Lance called Fat Pat and demanded help, threatening to expose them as being complicit if they did not.

Neither bodes well for McQuaid or the UCI. I smell breakaway league and U23's racing in the next Olympics. IOC will be done with cycling at a professional level.

When McQuaid stated that this was none of UCI's problem, his cell phone rang and was told that he was in the crapper as well, and that if he did not help out......the scorched earth policy would go into effect.

I do wonder however, if he was kept in the dark about Verbruggen and Armstrong being so cozy until later in the game.....many times he loooks so lost and caught off guard, and his initial position vis-a-vis the USADA flipped within hours says to me he is learning as he goes in many cases.

 

[spalco]

Thanks for that.

Very interesting and well put together. USADA has better lawyers (and presumably cheaper ones too)

maybe, but they definitely have the better case, which makes it easier to sound impressive. And they are clearly much better prepared, they did their homework before starting this fight.

 

[noddy69]

I am officially disgusted by Pat and co. They had no interest whatsoever in going after Armstrong et al. Now when guys who deserve it...deserve it, just thought id say that twice to be clear, get banned as they should and the net closes in on the biggest fish of them all, who has been caught out but not officially yet, so is guilty just not officially, the UCI decide that they want to get involved and stop it happening.

Now they cover it on jurstiction etc bull but if people cant see through that I would be amazed. The dark days are still in cycling and its not just Armstrong that has to fall. Pat and co are trying to get this pushed aside and dropped. The conspiricy looks like it leads to the heart of those currently involved in the UCI upper echelons and not the doctors and athletes alone. Its time to out them and instigate real change.

To be so blatant about it before the fall is either blind panic or just pure disdain for the public and cyclists who want the sport clean. Disgraceful.

 

[the big ring]

If you have 15 minutes then read USADAs letter to the UCI:

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

It makes excellent reading.

It's writen very clearly and has compelling points. It's in stark contrast to any of the Armstrong filings.

Thanks for that.

Very interesting and well put together. USADA has better lawyers (and presumably cheaper ones too)

Exactly the same link I posted 20 posts before The Hog. Do you have to have a certain number of posts before people read them?

 

[thehog]

Exactly the same link I posted 20 posts before The Hog. Do you have to have a certain number of posts before people read them?

No but if you carrying the standing i do around these parts people listen :roll eyes:

I actually posted excepts around 100 posts before you so I'd say we're even.

 

[Epicycle]

Nobody has got their story straight:

Bill Stapleton (agent/manager)
He -- yes, he gave a donation to the UCI three or four years
ago. I think he's done that maybe once or twice, with a -
- with a request to refine the --I believe -- we'd need to look
at the letter, but I believe it was to further do research
into the EPO test.
-deposition, Sept 2005

I took it from a presentation Ashenden gave to the Play the Game conference.

http://www.playthegame.org/uploads/media/Michael_Ashenden-Can_curruption_derail_the_testing_syst.pdf

 

[Epicycle]

Does anyone have Stapleton's SCA deposition?

 

[thehog]

Yes, I should have made that distinction. All these letters flying around, hard not to get confused!

But the two disputes seem very much entwined, as much of LA’s argument to Sparks is based on UCI ADR having precedence over USADA. The judge of course should not be saying anything about what UCI and USADA should do to settle their dispute. But maybe he could, as a way of dismissing LA’s suit, suggest that CAS would be the proper place to settle the issue of jurisdiction. And LA, of course, is free to take the case to CAS directly, rather than submit to USADA’s arbitration. Really, the more I think about this, the more I think it should go to CAS directly, saving everyone a lot of time and money. I can’t believe the loser of the arbitration would not appeal.



If they had jurisdiction, they wouldn’t refer it to any place. McQ makes that point very clear. So again, we come back to USADA appealing to CAS. All roads lead there now.

I now see that is USADA’s ace in the hole. Regardless of who has jurisdiction, they do have the right to take the case to CAS. The only argument McQ had against that is that it wasn't proceeding in the proper order, but that is nothing.

Correct. I guess the UCI's position is they want to get their hands on the evidence and once they have it they can the work on a case of dismissing it as irrelevant or have the time to build counterpoints. Of course they'll leak it to Lance so he can do the public muckraking of the witnesses.

For me a governing body in cahoots with an athlete and supporting them against an anti-doping agency is unprecedented. Never seen anything like it before. Especially in cycling where there is a history of the goverening body hanging athletes out to dry.I do realise behind the scenes the UCI helps athletes avoid doping controls but once positive/or passport'ed the UCI give them nothing.

All those passport cases look mighty shaky if USADA have their moment to show Armstrong's numbers and reasoning in a public hearing. Every athlete from here on end will refer to the Armstrong case as precedent.

I won't say this will bring down the UCI as they ultimately answer only to themselves but they're going to look mighty stupid in their continued support of Armstrong. I'm not sure who they can work a way to appear they're anti-doping and spin a way to get Armstrong off.

 

[noddy69]

Correct. I guess the UCI's position is they want to get their hands on the evidence and once they have it they can the work on a case of dismissing it as irrelevant or have the time to build counterpoints. Of course they'll leak it to Lance so he can do the public muckraking of the witnesses.

For me a governing body in cahoots with an athlete and supporting them against an anti-doping agency is unprecedented. Never seen anything like it before. Especially in cycling where there is a history of the goverening body hanging athletes out to dry.I do realise behind the scenes the UCI helps athletes avoid doping controls but once positive/or passport'ed the UCI give them nothing.

All those passport cases look mighty shaky if USADA have their moment to show Armstrong's numbers and reasoning in a public hearing. Every athlete from here on end will refer to the Armstrong case as precedent.

I won't say this will bring down the UCI as they ultimately answer only to themselves but they're going to look mighty stupid in their continued support of Armstrong. I'm not sure who they can work a way to appear they're anti-doping and work a way to get Armstrong off.

Basically they should say.....give us your evidence cause we want to give it to lance and our lawyers to see how we can get it thrown out. Its a disgrace, pure and simple and I quite enjoyed reading that letter .Lets hope they continue on the way they are going.

 

[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:

No but if you carrying the standing i do around these parts people listen :roll eyes:

I actually posted excepts around 100 posts before you so I'd say we're even.

Ahhh so stranding trumps post order. Gotcha.