WADA should appeal the Lance Armstrong title strip on SOL

[mountainrman]

It isnt just me that thinks so.
The UCI said as much.

Other legal minds think so too: see here.

http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/...armstrong-ban-flouted-anti-doping-law-experts

It flouts anti doping law. Much as USADA may want to strip LA of the title, resorting to US law when it suits them, it is not in line with WADA rules.

I am no armstrong supporter, but to me it is errant nonsense that Riis retains his TdF title despite admitting to doping that year, where Armstrong is stripped of his. The same rules must apply to all.

And others think so too.

My campaign is for a single set of rules, enforced impartially (therefore by a new body outside UCI or territorial jurisdiction ) so whether you are danish, spanish or American the result is the same. Having a friendly or unfriendly national federation should make not a jot of differene to any sanction. Ambiguities must be removed, not used when the agencies feel like it such as in the Rasmussen case

WADA will lose all credibility if they do not appeal it in my view.
It is clear THEY THINK that SOL applies which is why they are making it longer in double quick time. That is not enough. They must appeal to stay true to their own constitution.

UCI answer was wrong - they disagreed with the principle in wording, but ratified the outcome in practise because they prefer to strip him of titles. They used weasel words we accept it "for now" to hedge their bets on the future and to allow them to drift with opinion.. That is wrong. The rules must be universal, and applied without fear or favour. Whether or not they like Lance or think he damaged the sport is irrelevant. The rules are the rules and should be obeyed.

Discuss...

 

[thirteen]

Iblah blah blah
Discuss...

article already linked, discussed, and dismissed: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=18451&page=232

 

[Hugh Januss]

Yes but nobody without an agenda thinks so, so no WADA should not appeal.
Discussion over. Good try though.

 

[skidmark]

It isnt just me that thinks so.
The UCI said as much.

Other legal minds think so too: see here.

http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/...armstrong-ban-flouted-anti-doping-law-experts

It flouts anti doping law. Much as USADA may want to strip LA of the title, resorting to US law when it suits them, it is not in line with WADA rules.

I am no armstrong supporter, but to me it is errant nonsense that Riis retains his TdF title despite admitting to doping that year, where Armstrong is stripped of his. The same rules must apply to all.

And others think so too.

My campaign is for a single set of rules, enforced impartially (therefore by a new body outside UCI or territorial jurisdiction ) so whether you are danish, spanish or American the result is the same. Ambiguities must be removed, not used when the agencies feel like it such as in the Rasmussen case.

WADA will lose all credibility if they do not appeal it in my view.

UCI answer was wrong - they disagreed with the principle in wording, but ratified the outcome because they prefer it.. That is wrong. The rules must be universal, and applied without fear or favour..

Discuss...

Here's my contribution to the discussion:

- I want a single set of rules too

- Within that single set of rules, and within the current rules, I think the USADAs case for overrunning the SOL is sound; they demonstrated to my satisfaction that Armstrong used extreme measures to cover up exposure of his fraud, even when people tried to come forward in the appropriate time period

- your suggestion that 'the UCI says so too' to support your claim, combined with your tagline of 'WADA will lose all credibility' is beyond ironic; I can't take anything you say seriously because it contradicts itself

 

[Dr. Maserati]

It isnt just me that thinks so.
The UCI said as much.

Other legal minds think so too: see here.

http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/...armstrong-ban-flouted-anti-doping-law-experts

It flouts anti doping law. Much as USADA may want to strip LA of the title, resorting to US law when it suits them, it is not in line with WADA rules.

I am no armstrong supporter, but to me it is errant nonsense that Riis retains his TdF title despite admitting to doping that year, where Armstrong is stripped of his. The same rules must apply to all.

And others think so too.

My campaign is for a single set of rules, enforced impartially (therefore by a new body outside UCI or territorial jurisdiction ) so whether you are danish, spanish or American the result is the same. Having a friendly or unfriendly national federation should make not a jot of differene to any sanction. Ambiguities must be removed, not used when the agencies feel like it such as in the Rasmussen case

WADA will lose all credibility if they do not appeal it in my view.

UCI answer was wrong - they disagreed with the principle in wording, but ratified the outcome in practise because they prefer to strip him of titles.. That is wrong. The rules must be universal, and applied without fear or favour..

Discuss...

Cool story....
See the highlighted, the UCI said as much - can you give a brief explanation why the UCI did not appeal the decision which indeed they were entitled too?

Seems odd, don't you think?

 

[mountainrman]

Cool story....
See the highlighted, the UCI said as much - can you give a brief explanation why the UCI did not appeal the decision which indeed they were entitled to

Seems odd, don't you think?

Not odd at all. In my view the hopeless conflict of interests between promoting the sport requiring bad news supression, and enforcing the rules, demanding outing of wrong doing has always meant UCI are incapable of taking sensible decisions. As witness the fact that all those trying to expose the truth such as Jaksche were dismissed and blacklisted from the sport. UCI take politically expedient decisions, not ethical ones.

Had UCI behaved ethically and correctly rather than expediently Armstrong would never have lasted as long as he did: proper investigation of the claims made to them would in the end have won through. They turned on the truth tellers instead. The longevity of the armstrong era can certainly be laid at their door.

Their opposition to USADA interpretion of SOL is there and black and white.
They have as much spine as jellyfish when it comes to taking proper course of action, in this case appeal the wrong title removal, then propose rule changes as necessary for future

The principle of extending SOL in event of cover ups needs considering (WADA are extending it regrardless to 14 years I believe, which is simpler because it involves less complication in drafting than conditional SOL) but all that is irrelevant. They must enforce the rules as they are, not the rules as they want them to be.

 

[ebandit]

sit back and be happy

sit back and be happy that the biggest cheat in recent sporting history was exposed and lost his titles

so why would wada contest when usada operating under wada guidelines did a sound job?

it would be kinda strange for wada to support a doper............most of all
over any technicality when the athlete themselves chose not to

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not odd at all. In my view the hopeless conflict of interests between promoting the sport requiring bad news supression, and enforcing the rules, demanding outing of wrong doing has always meant UCI are incapable of taking sensible decisions. As witness the fact that all those trying to expose the truth such as Jaksche were dismissed and blacklisted from the sport. UCI take politically expedient decisions, not ethical ones.

Had UCI behaved ethically and correctly rather than expediently Armstrong would never have lasted as long as he did. That can certainly be laid at their door.

Their opposition to USADA interpretion of SOL is there and black and white.
They have as much spine as jellyfish when it comes to taking proper course of action, in this case appeal the wrong title removal, then propose rule changes as necessary for future

The principle of extending SOL in event of cover ups needs considering (WADA are extending it regrardless to 14 years I believe) but all that is irrelevant. They must enforce the rules as they are, not the rules as they want them to be.

The blue is correct - however, if you say the UCI bent the rules and LA should have been caught then how can you suggest the SOL should be upheld?

And why should the athletes ban (in this case LA) be overturned - surely if you wish for restitution then WADA should be upholding the ban and investigating the UCI.

 

[mountainrman]

The blue is correct - however, if you say the UCI bent the rules and LA should have been caught then how can you suggest the SOL should be upheld?

Because the SOL is the rules which should be upheld without fear or favour.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

As you know I think - UCI should be stripped of any role in sanctions on principle as well as history , on that Tygart and I agree, (as should USADA, the danish and spanish federations) who become prosecutors in a new sanctioning body, which then judges impartially regardless of jurisdiction so that support or lack of it from a country federation no longer has any effect on outcome neither does any local law, that Tygart wanted to invoke.

Sadly:taking decisions based on who you think the "bad guys are" is mob justice. And as the Rasmussen case shows, and the Contador case , it is not justice at all. It becomes voting for who you "like"

Hincapie was a career doper before and after he met Armstrong, and certainly was the main liutenant in the conspiracy to take the tour by doping, yet he was given almost no sanction at all. But because people "Like" him, and because he was a good enough cheat to cheat the system for a decade, but not good enough cyclist to win anything he gets off (almost) free. That is not justice. The crime is doping , and being involved in a conspiracy to dope (which he certainly was!) the crime is not "getting caught" ,it is not winning, or just being someone you do not like! "scumbag" I believe is the latest official UCI word for "do not like" - so destined to be singled out for harsh treatment.

I have to think that was Rasmussens main "crime". Nobody liked him, he had made too many enemies in the danish federation, so they treated him harshly and when the rules did not hit him hard enough, they invented some more to make sure they got him.

 

[MarkvW]

I think USADA was wrong on the SOL issue, but I also think they took a reasonable position. If Lance would have fought, the issue could have been briefed, argued, decided, and, if necessary, appealed. Lance didn't care enough to fight.

If Lance isn't going to fight the issue, why should anyone else care? There's no precedent set by a default, so the next doper can raise the issue if he or she wants to...

Enough money has been spent on doper Lance. The thing needs to end.

 

[ebandit]

i'm bad

sir justice was not served upon those who looked bad..............

but those proven to be bad

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Yes but nobody without an agenda thinks so, so no WADA should not appeal.
Discussion over. Good try though.

Good try it was.

No chance in Hell WADA appeal's and just because one guy says they should does not make a consensus.

 

[dermotmeagher]

Further to SOL discussions, and re: the IOC view as regards Armstrong's Sydney medal;

The IOC will now immediately start the process concerning the involvement of Lance Armstrong, other riders and particularly their entourages with respect to the Olympic Games and their future involvement with the Games," an IOC official told Reuters on Thursday.

And;

The IOC has an eight-year statute of limitation for changing Olympic results and stripping medals from doping offenders but IOC vice-president Thomas Bach hinted last month there could be ways around the time limit in this case.

"USADA's report has given some pointers that the statute of limitation was interrupted through Lance Armstrong lying about doping," said Bach, a lawyer who heads the IOC's juridical commission.

"We will have to examine to see if this is a way we can follow according to Swiss law."

http://www.rte.ie/sport/cycling/2012/1101/343890-ioc-to-probe-armstrongs-olympics-medal/

 

[mountainrman]

Further to SOL discussions, and re: the IOC view as regards Armstrong's Sydney medal;

And;


http://www.rte.ie/sport/cycling/2012/1101/343890-ioc-to-probe-armstrongs-olympics-medal/

The IOC should not be trying as they said to "find a way to circumvent their own rules" they should be using their rules and WADA rules as they are. They have been beaten twice at CAS for trying just that!

IOC are in a different jurisdiction to USADA so cannot use Tygarts twisted logic - resorting to US law, not WADA code anyway!

But There are two clear case precedents which prevent them.

There was a recent case concerning the UK OC trying to impose its own rules unilaterally to exclude such as Dwain Chambers and Millar from the olympicas - but that was overturned in CAS because no OC can enforce additional penalties over those specified in WADA code.

That all started with the US athlete LaShawn Merritt who took his own case to CAS and overturned the Osaka rule which prevented him from competing, CAS enforced the WADA code preventing the IOC from exacting harsher penalties than specified at WADA, so any ban expired athlete was eligible to be selected.

So the rules apply in the US too (not surprisingly!) and US OC will not be able to override WADA rules either. And rightly so.

The rules are the rules. No exceptions, just because they do not "like" what armstrong did.
There is an SOL specified in WADA code ,and it cannot be circumvented arbitrarily.

Considering the history of corruption in the IOC, and the way they run it as a private banana republic, they have some gall to attempt moral high ground on drug cheats! - they live and swim in the same sewer as each other.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because the SOL is the rules which should be upheld without fear or favour.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but all you have said is that UCI should have caught LA sooner, but you have not shown why tolling SOL is "wrong"


SOL has never been a rigid "rule" - it can be tolled for many reasons.
As Armstrong and the mob used many ways to hide their conspiracy including lies under oath, then SOL should be not produced as an excuse.

As you know I think - UCI should be stripped of any role in sanctions on principle as well as history , on that Tygart and I agree, (as should USADA, the danish and spanish federations) who become prosecutors in a new sanctioning body, which then judges impartially regardless of jurisdiction so that support or lack of it from a country federation no longer has any effect on outcome neither does any local law, that Tygart wanted to invoke.

Sadly:taking decisions based on who you think the "bad guys are" is mob justice. And as the Rasmussen case shows, and the Contador case , it is not justice at all. It becomes voting for who you "like"

Hincapie was a career doper before and after he met Armstrong, and certainly was the main liutenant in the conspiracy to take the tour by doping, yet he was given almost no sanction at all. But because people "Like" him, and because he was a good enough cheat to cheat the system for a decade, but not good enough cyclist to win anything he gets off (almost) free. That is not justice. The crime is doping , and being involved in a conspiracy to dope (which he certainly was!) the crime is not "getting caught" ,it is not winning, or just being someone you do not like! "scumbag" I believe is the latest official UCI word for "do not like" - so destined to be singled out for harsh treatment.

I have to think that was Rasmussens main "crime". Nobody liked him, he had made too many enemies in the danish federation, so they treated him harshly and when the rules did not hit him hard enough, they invented some more to make sure they got him.

UCI, Danes, whatever.
I am sure you did not want to derail your own thread by including off topic nonsense. So let's stick to SOL.

 

[ValleyFlowers]

The rules are the rules.

Not true. Never been that way. Never will be that way. Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[ValleyFlowers]

WADA should appeal the Lance Armstrong title strip on SOL

I don't expect WADA to even think about spending a single Loonie based on anything mentioned here.

 

[ebandit]

!

topic range is wider..............for t2olls

 

[mountainrman]

SOL has never been a rigid "rule" - it can be tolled for many reasons.

Of course it is rigid! And as the IOC have found in trying to "interpret" what they want the rules to be compared to what they actually are, they cannot change them arbitrarily. The cases I cited over Dwain Chambers, David Millar, LaShawnMerrit, all proving the rules are the rules.

The ONLY known instance ( I am sure I am right) of disregarding SOL in WADA code, is the creative argument used by Tygart based in US law, not Sport rules.
But as the IOC have found losing twice at CAS. you cannot exact a harsher penalty than the WADA code specifies.

The only question is whether WADA (or ICU) have the guts to enforce their own rules! - historically they are more interested in politics than ethical behaviour. So here is a chance to see whether they have any credibility left.

 

[MarkvW]

Of course it is rigid! And as the IOC have found in trying to "interpret" what they want the rules to be compared to what they actually are, they cannot change them arbitrarily. The cases I cited over Dwain Chambers, David Millar, LaShawnMerrit, all proving the rules are the rules.

The ONLY known instance ( I am sure I am right) of disregarding SOL in WADA code, is the creative argument used by Tygart based in US law, not Sport rules.
But as the IOC have found losing twice at CAS. you cannot exact a harsher penalty than the WADA code specifies.

The only question is whether WADA (or ICU) have the guts to enforce their own rules! - historically they are more interested in politics than ethical behaviour. So here is a chance to see whether they have any credibility left.

Glad that there's only one question left and that everything else is "rigid." That's telling us!

 

[Aleajactaest]

Here's my contribution to the discussion:

- I want a single set of rules too

- Within that single set of rules, and within the current rules, I think the USADAs case for overrunning the SOL is sound; they demonstrated to my satisfaction that Armstrong used extreme measures to cover up exposure of his fraud, even when people tried to come forward in the appropriate time period

- your suggestion that 'the UCI says so too' to support your claim, combined with your tagline of 'WADA will lose all credibility' is beyond ironic; I can't take anything you say seriously because it contradicts itself

Do the rules that USADA operates under say that have the specific right to go past the 8 years based on the exterme measures argument or did they first assert that right in this case? Serious question.

 

[ebandit]

sir?

Of course it is rigid! And as the IOC have found in trying to "interpret" what they want the rules to be compared to what they actually are, they cannot change them arbitrarily. The cases I cited over Dwain Chambers, David Millar, LaShawnMerrit, all proving the rules are the rules.

The ONLY known instance ( I am sure I am right) of disregarding SOL in WADA code, is the creative argument used by Tygart based in US law, not Sport rules.
But as the IOC have found losing twice at CAS. you cannot exact a harsher penalty than the WADA code specifies.

The only question is whether WADA (or ICU) have the guts to enforce their own rules! - historically they are more interested in politics than ethical behaviour. So here is a chance to see whether they have any credibility left.

sir as forum members here think differently why not contact uci / wada
explain where they are misguided and help them along the true path

 

[Aleajactaest]

I think USADA was wrong on the SOL issue, but I also think they took a reasonable position. If Lance would have fought, the issue could have been briefed, argued, decided, and, if necessary, appealed. Lance didn't care enough to fight.

If Lance isn't going to fight the issue, why should anyone else care? There's no precedent set by a default, so the next doper can raise the issue if he or she wants to...

Enough money has been spent on doper Lance. The thing needs to end.

Why should a riders cooperation matter? Isn't it USADAs job to find the evidence and follow it? Why should any rider get a different penalty under the rules for making USADA's job easier? e.g. why did all the guys who narc'd get a 6 month suspension instead of the 2-4 years they should get under the rules? Crime = penalty or why are their rules and defined penalties?

 

[Bosco10]

I think USADA was wrong on the SOL issue, but I also think they took a reasonable position. If Lance would have fought, the issue could have been briefed, argued, decided, and, if necessary, appealed. Lance didn't care enough to fight.

If Lance isn't going to fight the issue, why should anyone else care? There's no precedent set by a default, so the next doper can raise the issue if he or she wants to...

Enough money has been spent on doper Lance. The thing needs to end.

The man himself spoke very clearly:
"There comes a point in every man's life when he has to say, enough is enough... I am finished with this nonsense."

 

[Race Radio]

Do the rules that USADA operates under say that have the specific right to go past the 8 years based on the exterme measures argument or did they first assert that right in this case? Serious question.

The Hellebuck case is the standard for Tolling SOL in a WADA case
http://www.usada.org/uploads/hellebuyckaaaruling.pdf

Given that Armstrong lied in multiple official investigations, under oath, in interviews, and in contracts for over a decade it would not be hard to reset SOL.