• 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 @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

WADA Declines to appeal USADA Reasoned Decsion to CAS

Love the caption!!!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/photos/wada-will-not-appeal-usada-decision-on-lance-armstrong/243116


bettiniphoto_0002541_1_full_600.jpg

"Lance Armstrong in one of the races he did not win"
 
it's over

as if wada were ever going to appeal to cas...............such claims sounded too much like 'drowning men grasping at straws'

that's it all finished

apart from lance sending back that olympic silver medal

now he can sit back and watch the liestrong brand drift into obscurity
 
Catwhoorg said:
I don't think anyone (apart from those involved with the defendants) truly expected an appeal.

Bingo!

The organizations are tied to one another. It's how WADA's standards are applied on a country-by-country basis. WADA is not going to challenge USADA's work.

Without a doubt, this is more good news. It is not a surprise though.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Of course, this was not unexpected. Even the plainly worded warning to the uci was hardly a surprise...i was more impressed with WADA's clear emphasis on the INDEPENDENCE of the review panel and the expectation that wada play a prominent role in it. All excellent news for kimmage.

Of course, another byproduct of the non-appeal is that Armstrong will be almost certainly stripped of the Olympic bronze from 2000.
 
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Visit site
python said:
Of course, this was not unexpected. Even the plainly worded warning to the uci was hardly a surprise...i was more impressed with WADA's clear emphasis on the INDEPENDENCE of the review panel and the expectation that wada play a prominent role in it. All excellent news for kimmage.

Of course, another byproduct of the non-appeal is that Armstrong will be almost certainly stripped of the Olympic bronze from 2000.

IMO, the most significant part of the WADA statement was that they had independent counsel give them a legal opinion of the statute of limitations interpretation by USADA. Their counsel opined that USADA was spot on regarding that issue. That a few lawyers in Europe have complained about this only shows that they have no real understanding of common law jurisprudence where equity courts developed the clean hands doctrine that eventually found its way into s of l tolling for bad acts to cover up wrongdoing.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
Is that the stage he tried to help Landis win, but Landis didn't have enough left for a sprint so Wonderboy took it?

In the now infamous Edward F Coyle studyon Wonderboy 1992-1999 Coyle "predicted" that through years of endurance training Armstrong's fast twitch muscle fibers (type II) that kick in during a sprint had decreased from 40% of total muscle fibers to 20% by conversion to type I fiber (endurance).

No muscle biopsies were taken to prove this "prediction".

Armstrong must have been a truly genetic freak to win a flat stage sprint with such a deficient arsenal of explosive power.
 
Jan 30, 2011
802
0
0
Visit site
Dazed and Confused said:
Its mostly about cash when deciding to take the case to CAS,
There will be more battles later and few cares about Armstrong at this point anyway

While cost is an important consideration, I think the principles are a more telling factor.

In this case the issue that would have been addressed would have been the SOL aspect, however WADA indicate that they sort an independent legal opinion on that and were satisfied that USADA had acted correctly.

Nothing to appeal, irrespective of cost in doing so.
 
Velodude said:
In the now infamous Edward F Coyle studyon Wonderboy 1992-1999 Coyle "predicted" that through years of endurance training Armstrong's fast twitch muscle fibers (type II) that kick in during a sprint had decreased from 40% of total muscle fibers to 20% by conversion to type I fiber (endurance).

No muscle biopsies were taken to prove this "prediction".

Armstrong must have been a truly genetic freak to win a flat stage sprint with such a deficient arsenal of explosive power.

It was a mountain stage with like 5 guys left: Floyd, Ullrich, Basso, Kloden and Lance.

That was the first Tour I watched, and that was the stage that got me excited about cycling, even though I already hated Armstrong and cheered against him. Glad to know Klodi actually won that one, that was who I was cheering for in the first place.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Cimacoppi49 said:
IMO, the most significant part of the WADA statement was that they had independent counsel give them a legal opinion of the statute of limitations interpretation by USADA. Their counsel opined that USADA was spot on regarding that issue. That a few lawyers in Europe have complained about this only shows that they have no real understanding of common law jurisprudence where equity courts developed the clean hands doctrine that eventually found its way into s of l tolling for bad acts to cover up wrongdoing.

You're giving lawyers a bad name by being helpful and informative you know. I hope you don't get disbarred.

Smartarsery aside, your measured and informational tone and content is very much appreciated.
 
peterst6906 said:
While cost is an important consideration, I think the principles are a more telling factor.

In this case the issue that would have been addressed would have been the SOL aspect, however WADA indicate that they sort an independent legal opinion on that and were satisfied that USADA had acted correctly.

Nothing to appeal, irrespective of cost in doing so.

If you say so.