USADA - Armstrong

[goober]

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

Which case was like this?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

If Pat wrote directly to the Court, it might be something like this.

Dear Judge Sparks.

My name is Pat McQuaid, I am the supreme ruler of all things bike related and sometimes skateboards, unless you are a girl.
Do you sir own a bike? If not you obviously hate cyclists and therefore should excuse yourself forthwith if not sooner from making any kind of ruling.

If you do own a bike then we own you - yes, by having a bike it is either compliant with our UCI rules of which I was democratically elected to by Hein.
If your bike is one of those cheap ones that you buy in Walmart then it is not compliant with UCI rules and you sir or a rule breaker - whether you agree to our rules or not.

To see if your bike is compliant with UCI rules please visit Mellow Johnnies, just around the corner from you. Go in the back door via the car-lot and make your way to the main desk and take the stairs down to the basement. Ask for Kevin who will assist you - you do not need to bring your bike.
Thank you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Could you point out the good parts?

Am, well the font they chose was quite nice.

 

[python]

If Pat wrote directly to the Court, it might be something like this.

Dear Judge Sparks.

My name is Pat McQuaid, I am the supreme ruler of all things bike related and sometimes skateboards, unless you are a girl.
Do you sir own a bike? If not you obviously hate cyclists and therefore should excuse yourself forthwith if not sooner from making any kind of ruling.

If you do own a bike then we own you - yes, by having a bike it is either compliant with our UCI rules of which I was democratically elected to by Hein.
If your bike is one of those cheap ones that you buy in Walmart then it is not compliant with UCI rules and you sir or a rule breaker - whether you agree to our rules or not.

To see if your bike is compliant with UCI rules please visit Mellow Johnnies, just around the corner from you. Go in the back door via the car-lot and make your way to the main desk and take the stairs down to the basement. Ask for Kevin who will assist you - you do not need to bring your bike.
Thank you.

this is hilarious, doc !!

 

[Race Radio]

Which case was like this?

True, other cases did not have so much evidence of UCI corruption

 

[Race Radio]

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...

Really? You liked the part about how USADA cannot go after Lance because he is retired?

This is not ground breaking. Arbitration agreements have been upheld for decades. It would be groundbreaking if Lance was able to fool the judge but it would just be overturned on appeal

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

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.

He most certainly is aware of the implications of a dismissal. And will likely be even more compelled if USADA files some detailed evidence for his perusal. The proverbial crap is getting closer to the fan, and the fan is on high. Logically an innocent man should look forward to his day in court

Then the second layer of crap comes from Pat and US cycling....both of whom should be eager for LA to prove his innocence and yet they all wish to deprive him of that chance.

Sparks has all of this figured out and remembers all too well the lying that went on to the GJ in the Balco affair. I don't think he wants to be part of the problem and it will be hard to argue that granting the motion makes him part of the solution.

 

[Kennf1]

True, other cases did not have so much evidence of UCI corruption

Yep, how often is McQuaid sent a transcript from a court hearing concerning a particular rider?

 

[goober]

True, other cases did not have so much evidence of UCI corruption

Ok, I'll make the question easier on you... Which previous case with no corruption and less similar evidence went through a dismissal hearing like this with these questions asked?

 

[the big ring]

Ok, I'll make the question easier on you... Which previous case with no corruption and less similar evidence went through a dismissal hearing like this with these questions asked?

I give up. Which case? Tell me!

 

[goober]

Really? You liked the part about how USADA cannot go after Lance because he is retired?

This is not ground breaking. Arbitration agreements have been upheld for decades. It would be groundbreaking if Lance was able to fool the judge but it would just be overturned on appeal

Like I said not all is correct or right; but, yes that is a valid question that can be answered.

This is ground breaking - seems like your vision is narrow for some reason. These types of cases are extremely important and if it was not ground breaking then you could cite a previous similar case and 'almost' use that judgement to convince Sparks of his ruling. Like I said take your freak'n blinders off if Lance is guilt or not in your mind.

 

[Berzin]

Astana.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana-under-investigation-in-france

Can't find the link to the video.

Dave.

Thanks, Dave.

Anyone know when the Sparks ruling will come down? I'm on pins and needles here...

 

[learn to ride]

Distict judge to dismiss Armstrong suit against USADA?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/distict-judge-to-dismiss-armstrong-suit-against-usada

 

[Deagol]

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

setting themselves up to let him off free, typical

 

[QuickStepper]

All sarcasm aside, am I the only one here who finds it significant from a legal and jurisdictional point of view that USAC has in Stephen Hess' letter dated August 17, taken the position that UCI gets to call the shots as to whether or not there will or won't be any arbitration, and that when it comes to UCI vs. USADA, it is UCI's "interpretation" of the WADA Code and the jurisdictional issues that control, not USADA's?

In the third full paragraph at page one of his letter, Hess writes:

"With respect to that esoteric legal issue (jurisdiction). . . USAC is not only a National Governing Bocy recognized by USOC with obligations in that capacity, but it is also a National Federation recognized by UCI, whom the IOC in turn recognizes as the International Federation that governs cycling. In UCI's capacity as the IOC-recognized International Federation for cycling, USAC believes that UCI has the power to express its interpretation of WADA's Anti-Doping Code, its application to international cycling events, and the Code's jurisdictional provisions in matters within the scope of its authority. Accordingly, to the extent that USADA asserts that it has the capacity to act under UCI authority through USA Cycling, UCI has a diametrically opposite view, and USADA's asssertion that it is acting on behalf of UCI (through USA Cycling) is not consistent with UCI's own interpretation of the meaning and effect of UCI's anti-doping commitments and responsibilities...".

If I were Judge Sparks, this would be one point that would immediately grab my attention. If USADA had argued and conceded (as they are alleged to have done at the last hearing) that its authority to proceed with the arbitration and/or to impose sanctions -- at least as against Armstrong-- is derived because USADA is purporting to act on behalf of USA Cycling (because Armstrong's license was alleged to have been issued by USAC), and USAC is now saying "stop and obey the instructions of UCI", that would be a huge hurdle to get over.

I don't pretend to know the intricacies of the WADA Code or the rules applicable to USA Cycling via UCI, but it seems pretty clear that the pyramid runs IOC--->UCI--->USAC--->USADA in terms of organizational structure and rules implementation. And where, as here, the UCI is saying to USAC "hey, you have no authority to proceed here, and neither does your testing agency, USADA" and USAC agrees with that assessment, what real choice does USADA have?

I know people here are going to claim that I'm favoring one side or the other, but this is only my reaction to the documents that have been filed today thus far. I am waiting eagerly to see what USADA will have to say. I keep checking the docket hourly, but nothing yet from USADA.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

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?

Yes, positive tests from an independent lab go to the UCI and the national federation. The problem is that both parties have a vested interest in not proceeding to actual sanctions. To use the Contador example, it is highly likely that the UCI would have "reviewed" his Clen positive and determined that it did not need to be prosecuted. The national fed quietly agrees because the values are so low and you never hear of it again unless an eager reporter finds out.

It gets even worse with non-analytical positives a la biopassport or whistle blowers. UCI is the sole gate keeper of all information and is not under review. Only they decide if they hand over evidence to the national federation for prosecution.

Which is why they are so ****y about the Lance investigation!

The USADA got the non-analytical evidence all on their own and bypassed the UCI. Unfortunately the UCI feels that they are *still* the gatekeepers. Pass the info over and they will determine the validity of the case. Maybe they'll recommend a sanction. Maybe they won't.

That's completely insane logic though. The IOC recognizes WADA as the worldwide antidoping authority. To be an olympic sport cycling must recognize WADA as well; this is the case with cycling. WADA and the US government (via the Stevens Act of congress I think?) recognize the USADA as the competent antidoping authority for the United States and all US federations of olympic sports. That's it. USADA is the only game in town. They have been, are now, and will continue into the future as the guys who bust, prosecute and sanction athletes.

It's amazing how easy it would be to cover up doping if you were the UCI. If it's a straight up failed drug test all you have to do is provide some reason (back dated TUE, procedural issue, any semi-rational argument) and the federation doesn't prosecute. Heck even the athlete might not even hear about it. It just goes away. If it's something the UCI controls like the biopassport, then the positive gets "lost" or re-interpreted by another expert.

In fact, I think the only way that you can get caught without having the UCI sweep it under the rug is by avoiding OOC tests...

Anyways, the UCI is insane and don't have a leg to stand on. I'm not surprised that their really upset - they've just lost control. Something they've held for a very long time. Must be infuriating!

John Swanson

 

[henryg]

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

WADA confirmed they have jurisdiction -go read the WADA letter

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

It is likely they have testimony from Vaughters, Hincapie, Leipheimmer, Zabriskie and 5 or 6 more... that they were present when they and Lance were administered PEDs. Thats not 'I heard it from someone else', thats I was in the room getting my injections from the same doc that was giving Lance his injections right next to me.

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.

They are "having at it" and following the procedure Armstrong agreed to and every other doping investigation has adhered to. Nothing special or extraordinary about the procedures. Neither the UCI or Armstrong has ever complained about the same procedures being applied to myriad of doping investigations over the past decade.

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.

You are confused. The Feds were not after Lance for doping, it's not a crime. The investigators thought they had a very strong case for fraud, money laundering and whatever else the Feds were pursuing and wanted to prosecute but a higher up decided for reasons he did not reveal that the case would not move forward.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

All sarcasm aside, am I the only one here who finds it significant from a legal and jurisdictional point of view that USAC has in Stephen Hess' letter dated August 17, taken the position that UCI gets to call the shots as to whether or not there will or won't be any arbitration, and that when it comes to UCI vs. USADA, it is UCI's "interpretation" of the WADA Code and the jurisdictional issues that control, not USADA's?

In the third full paragraph at page one of his letter, Hess writes:

"With respect to that esoteric legal issue (jurisdiction). . . USAC is not only a National Governing Bocy recognized by USOC with obligations in that capacity, but it is also a National Federation recognized by UCI, whom the IOC in turn recognizes as the International Federation that governs cycling. In UCI's capacity as the IOC-recognized International Federation for cycling, USAC believes that UCI has the power to express its interpretation of WADA's Anti-Doping Code, its application to international cycling events, and the Code's jurisdictional provisions in matters within the scope of its authority. Accordingly, to the extent that USADA asserts that it has the capacity to act under UCI authority through USA Cycling, UCI has a diametrically opposite view, and USADA's asssertion that it is acting on behalf of UCI (through USA Cycling) is not consistent with UCI's own interpretation of the meaning and effect of UCI's anti-doping commitments and responsibilities...".

If I were Judge Sparks, this would be one point that would immediately grab my attention. If USADA had argued and conceded (as they are alleged to have done at the last hearing) that its authority to proceed with the arbitration and/or to impose sanctions -- at least as against Armstrong-- is derived because USADA is purporting to act on behalf of USA Cycling (because Armstrong's license was alleged to have been issued by USAC), and USAC is now saying "stop and obey the instructions of UCI", that would be a huge hurdle to get over.

I don't pretend to know the intricacies of the WADA Code or the rules applicable to USA Cycling via UCI, but it seems pretty clear that the pyramid runs IOC--->UCI--->USAC--->USADA in terms of organizational structure and rules implementation. And where, as here, the UCI is saying to USAC "hey, you have no authority to proceed here, and neither does your testing agency, USADA" and USAC agrees with that assessment, what real choice does USADA have?

I know people here are going to claim that I'm favoring one side or the other, but this is only my reaction to the documents that have been filed today thus far. I am waiting eagerly to see what USADA will have to say. I keep checking the docket hourly, but nothing yet from USADA.

No - that is what the UCI want it to be.
They - and you have omitted WADA, who write the rules that UCI adopt in this.

 

[TubularBills]

USADA has to be pleased as punch over this cascade of new evidence proving complicity and corruption.

Curious if the LA team realizes that they're actually strengthening the arbitration case in USADA's favor.

Wouldn't be surprised if Travis adds the UCI and USAC to the web - if he needed evidence to do so, he now has it.

 

[goober]

USADA has to be pleased as punch over this cascade of new evidence proving complicity and corruption.

Curious if the LA team realizes that they're actually strengthening the arbitration case in USADA's favor.

Wouldn't be surprised if Travis adds the UCI and USAC to the web - if he needed evidence to do so, he now has it.

I don't think they care about the strengthening arbitration case - I think we all can predict how that would go...

 

[Deagol]

....
I don't pretend to know the intricacies of the WADA Code or the rules applicable to USA Cycling via UCI, but it seems pretty clear that the pyramid runs IOC--->UCI--->USAC--->USADA in terms of organizational structure and rules implementation. And where, as here, the UCI is saying to USAC "hey, you have no authority to proceed here, and neither does your testing agency, USADA" and USAC agrees with that assessment, what real choice does USADA have?

....

I am going to ATTEMPT to answer based on what I THINK I understand and I may very well be wrong, but presumably someone more knowledgable will correct this, so here goes:

USADA's authority is also derived directly through USOC/WADA, and therefore doesn't require UCI or USAC's "permission" ???????

Like I said, this may be wrong, but I am hoping someone will correct who knows this stuff.....

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/103160637/USADA-Motion-to-Dimiss-2

USADA's very elegant dismantling of the smokescreen

 

[Race Radio]

Like I said not all is correct or right; but, yes that is a valid question that can be answered.

This is ground breaking - seems like your vision is narrow for some reason. These types of cases are extremely important and if it was not ground breaking then you could cite a previous similar case and 'almost' use that judgement to convince Sparks of his ruling. Like I said take your freak'n blinders off if Lance is guilt or not in your mind.

They are only ground breaking if they break ground. This does not break ground, it clogs the toilet.

 

[MacRoadie]

Two things to remember:

"In UCI's capacity as the IOC-recognized International Federation for cycling, USAC believes that UCI has the power to express its interpretation of WADA's Anti-Doping Code, its application to international cycling events, and the Code's jurisdictional provisions in matters within the scope of its authority."

The Code does not afford signatories the latitude to "interpert" anything. When you sign, you agree to abide by the Code...as written and adopted.

I don't pretend to know the intricacies of the WADA Code or the rules applicable to USA Cycling via UCI, but it seems pretty clear that the pyramid runs IOC--->UCI--->USAC--->USADA in terms of organizational structure and rules implementation.

Under the Code, USADA holds the same level on the pyramid as the UCI. Take a look at David Howman's letter to Pat explaining how far off the reservation he really is. What is abundantly clear, is how twisted and contorted UCI's "interpretation" of the Code really is.

 

[QuickStepper]

No - that is what the UCI want it to be.
They - and you have omitted WADA, who write the rules that UCI adopt in this.

No, I didn't intentionally leave out WADA. It's my understanding though that WADA is only a rule-making authority that has adopted a Code of regulations that must be followed by all of the varioius participants in the chain described above (IOC, UCI, USAC and USADA, as well as any other NGB's and whatever testing/investigatory bodies those NGB's may have to whom they delegate powers).

I don't pretend either to understand the WADA Code, but it sounds like you're suggesting that there's something in the WADA regulations that gives USADA independent jurisdiction-- separate and apart from USA Cycling's delegation of authority to test and enforce the WADA Code with respect to USA-licensed cyclists within the territorial boundaries of the US and with respect to national-sanctioned races.

Are you saying is that the UCI's position that USADA only has authority to test in national-sanctioned events and not with respect to internationally-sanctioned races, is wrong?

Are also saying that UCI's position that because it asked USADA to "investigate" that this request didn't also include the authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings or to impose sanctions, is also wrong?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand.