WADA should appeal the Lance Armstrong title strip on SOL

[MarkvW]

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?

Lance doesn't care. Why should we? So what? It's not like there's any doubt over the organized doping conspiracy. Why should anybody spend money further debating which tainted results Lance should keep and which tainted results should be erased?

 

[Raul Ramaya]

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?

But isn't that the true issue here? Both you and mountainman seem to be arguing that the crime committed by the guys who narc'd equals the crime committed by Armstrong. From that standpoint at least some of what you've written makes sense. My reading of the reasoned decision, however, is that the crime is conspiracy (not doping per se) and that Armstrong a leader.

So here's a straightforward question: do you think that Hincapie's crime = Armstrong's crime?

 

[Race Radio]

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

Impressive amount of misinformation.

Tolling is not "US Law" It is used world wide. The head of WADA has acknowledged it's validity......They are anti-doping arm of the IOC

Is it your intention to spread misinformation or do you really not understand this topic?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

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.

What's amusing is you want the "rules" to be applied.
Which could mean an athletes rights under law are ignored - so of course to have those rights applied needs that countries law to be applied.

So, no WADA will not appeal the USADA decision as it fair and just.

 

[MacRoadie]

Is it your intention to spread misinformation or do you really not understand this topic?

Yes.......

 

[131313]

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?

To incentivize people to come forward, be truthful and aid the investigation. But of course, you know this...

Question: why complain about this now? It's been in the WADA code pretty much since its inception.

 

[131313]

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.

I pretty much agree; though I don't have a strong opinion on the SOL issue, I can see both sides of it. I'm guessing though that this has more to do with Bruyneel's case than Armstrong's, and I'm guessing that the guy making the statement is either directly or indirectly going to be involved in Bruyneel's defense (even more than he is currently). I don't think this was just some random babble, it seems very contrived.

I'm wondering, how long before this is up on "Opposing Views"...

 

[ValleyFlowers]

Serious question.

Serious Answer.
CAS has already ruled on the use of tolling in the World Anti-Doping Code Article 17 Statute of Limitation. The ruling occurred in a previous Statute of Limitation opinion sought by Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI).
The CAS Advisory Opinion supports USADA's position and the ruling is mentioned in the Reasoned Decision (Page 154).

source: CAS 2005/C/841 CONI page 24/25

"78. The question may arise as to how to measure the eight-year period in terms, for example, of dies a quo, interruption, suspension, expiry or extension of such time-bar. In this respect, it must be noted that doping rules enacted by sports authorities are private law rules (and not penal law rules). Consequently, in the Panel’s view, any legal issue concerning the application of such eight-year rule should be dealt with in the context of the principles of private law of the country where the interested sports authority is domiciled. For instance, with respect to the doping rules issued by international federations domiciled in Switzerland, the rules of Swiss civil law concerning the statute of limitations – in French “prescription” – should be applied complementarily to the sports rules themselves. By the same token, Italian sports authorities, when applying their own rules setting forth a statute of limitations – in particular, the eight-year rule implemented by CONI and by Italian federations after Article 17 of the WADC –, should interpret such rules in the context of the Italian civil code and the related civil law jurisprudence on “prescrizione” in order to evaluate whether they are actually time-barred from opening a disciplinary proceeding for facts occurred years before"

 

[ValleyFlowers]

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.

ONLY known instance? Wrong about that as you're wrong about so much else.
See my previous post.

 

[mikkemus23]

OP:

 

[MarkvW]

Nd

But isn't that the true issue here? Both you and mountainman seem to be arguing that the crime committed by the guys who narc'd equals the crime committed by Armstrong. From that standpoint at least some of what you've written makes sense. My reading of the reasoned decision, however, is that the crime is conspiracy (not doping per se) and that Armstrong a leader.

So here's a straightforward question: do you think that Hincapie's crime = Armstrong's crime?

I don't think that you should use Armstrong as the standard for evaluating doping punishment. That's like using Stalin as the standard for evaluating murder punishment.

Lance is so far off the charts, it is unbelievable.

Problem is, Hincapie's long term doping behavior--and support of the doping conspiracy is itself awful. Hincapie got way less than he deserved BASED ON DOPING CONDUCT ALONE. That's got to be obvious to everybody. He's equal or worse than Rasmussen and Valverde, easily.

Hincapie got a deal because he snitched. Snitches are the ONLY way to beak omertà. You don't get snitches without deals. It sucks, but it sucks less than the alternative.

 

[Velodude]

To incentivize people to come forward, be truthful and aid the investigation. But of course, you know this...

Question: why complain about this now? It's been in the WADA code pretty much since its inception.

Yep. Spelt out chapter and verse in rules 298-305 of the UCI Anti Doping Rules starting at page 55 under heading "Substantial Assistance".

 

[skidmark]

What's amusing is you want the "rules" to be applied.
Which could mean an athletes rights under law are ignored - so of course to have those rights applied needs that countries law to be applied.

So, no WADA will not appeal the USADA decision as it fair and just.

Exactly. The simplest thing for me is that the athlete affected by the decision (athletes, really, as the only ones who appealed were the doctors and team managers) didn't appeal the decision; it is not WADA's place to act for them, as they accept the decision by not appealing themselves. It isn't like this is some legal fight that will set the precedent for everything forever; this is a legal recommendation that wasn't appealed by the athlete at the centre of it. Saying WADA should do some dirty work for him just seems like feeble clutching at straws to suggest after the fact that the process wasn't fair or something. If the SOL was such a big deal, Armstrong should've appealed it. He didn't, so go blame him if you have a problem, folks.

 

[Sarcastic Wet Trout]

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.

You list the reasons that USADA gave for extending the SOL, then say that they extended the SOL arbitrarily.

I don't think you understand the word arbitrarily.

 

[D-Queued]

Impressive amount of misinformation.

Tolling is not "US Law" It is used world wide. The head of WADA has acknowledged it's validity......They are anti-doping arm of the IOC

Is it your intention to spread misinformation or do you really not understand this topic?

I am not accusing anyone of anything, and definitely don't want to thread jack, but you might want to be careful with this one.

The last time there was someone with this posting style they were asking for you to provide your identity.

Yes.......

Hey MacR, maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I haven't seen you post for a while!

Hope all is well.

Dave.

 

[fat_boy_fat]

The rules are the rules. No exceptions, just because they do not "like" what armstrong did.

The SOL is a rule, not the rule. It’s just a convention. Limit could be ten or six years, now it’s eight, for no special reason.

It’s absolutely right to point out what separates this case from others: it’s the scope, the duration, the criminal actions taken on other riders, staff, officials. Therefore, and more so with the violations of civil and penal laws in mind, there is no justification to protect the results of a performance, that was based not only on broken rules, but also on lawbreaking and perjury, and this not coincidentally or individually, but following a plan, pursued by a group of people (Armstrong, Bruyneel, Weisel etc.).

We’re not talking about a single rider, who made a mistake, who is due to our forgiveness and whom we should help to keep at least some of his rewards, because in the end it was still sportsmanship which helped him get these.

We’re talking about a criminal organisation making a three-digit amount of millions of dollars by maintaining a huge fraud over more than a decade.

The only thing to protect here is the sport and the people who maintain it by fair means. Wonderboy has never done right, so he has never won anything that could be spared from being stripped off him.

Now do me a favour and go back to your mountains.

 

[mountainrman]

Serious Answer.
CAS has already ruled on the use of tolling in the World Anti-Doping Code Article 17 Statute of Limitation. The ruling occurred in a previous Statute of Limitation opinion sought by Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI).
The CAS Advisory Opinion supports USADA's position and the ruling is mentioned in the Reasoned Decision (Page 154).

source: CAS 2005/C/841 CONI page 24/25

"78. The question may arise as to how to measure the eight-year period in terms, for example, of dies a quo, interruption, suspension, expiry or extension of such time-bar. In this respect, it must be noted that doping rules enacted by sports authorities are private law rules (and not penal law rules). Consequently, in the Panel’s view, any legal issue concerning the application of such eight-year rule should be dealt with in the context of the principles of private law of the country where the interested sports authority is domiciled. For instance, with respect to the doping rules issued by international federations domiciled in Switzerland, the rules of Swiss civil law concerning the statute of limitations – in French “prescription” – should be applied complementarily to the sports rules themselves. By the same token, Italian sports authorities, when applying their own rules setting forth a statute of limitations – in particular, the eight-year rule implemented by CONI and by Italian federations after Article 17 of the WADC –, should interpret such rules in the context of the Italian civil code and the related civil law jurisprudence on “prescrizione” in order to evaluate whether they are actually time-barred from opening a disciplinary proceeding for facts occurred years before"

That may be true as the transcript of judgement but the WADA code is absolute in respect of SOL and that judgement may be suspect

Any number of judgements have demonstrated that countries cannot take their own selective interpretations of any rulings more onerous than WADA code. They have tried and failed - I mentioned a couple previous.

The helleybuck precedent sometimes quoted was totally different legal context, which was helleybuck Perjured in respect of his hearing regarding the sports sanction process ITSELF with USOC - so it in effect the judgement did not in essence open a new case, but in effect opened the same case that had started many years earlier within valid SOL and rewrote the judgement in respect of the judgement that would have been ,had Helleybucktold the truth consistent with his later modified statements

In any event many commentators legally qualified are saying the same - DESPITE Tygarts documents to the contrary. ie that judgement of CAS to allow countries to redefine a clear WADA code in respect of their own countries SOL legislation is clearly suspect in the minds of many qualified to say so.

You will recall that UCI said it too, and the fact that WADA are hurriedly extending the SOL to 14 years demonstrates they think there is a problem too.

So there is clearly a real legal problem here. And unsurprisingly - because the SOL in wada code is a single sentence unconditional, so hardly open to interpretation
CAS does not have the power to change WADA code, much as it might like to do so.

In the end the question is equitable judgement. It is errant nonsense that Riis retains his TdF title despite admitting doping, whilst Lance is stripped of his. It is also errant nonsense , that being of any specific nationality should either increase or decrease sanction - and several cases recent have made that clear. Jurisdictions cannot make up their own rules.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That may be true as the transcript of judgement but the WADA code is absolute in respect of SOL and that judgement may be suspect

Any number of judgements have demonstrated that countries cannot take their own selective interpretations of any rulings more onerous than WADA code. They have tried and failed

The helleybuck precedent sometimes quoted was totally different legal context, which was helleybuck Perjured in respect of his hearing regarding the sports sanction process ITSELF with USOC - so it in effect the judgement did not in essence allow opening of a new case, but in effect opened the same case that had started many years earlier within valid SOL and rewrote the judgement in respect of the judgement that would have been had Helleybuck later modified statements owning up been made in that process earlier

In any event many commentators legally qualified are saying the same - DESPITE Tygarts documents to the contrary. ie that judgement of CAS to allow countries to redefine a clear WADA code in respect of their own countries SOL legislation is clearly suspect in the minds of many qualified to say so.

You will recall that UCI said it too, and the fact that WADA are hurriedly extending the SOL to 14 years demonstrates they think there is a problem too.

So there is clearly a real legal problem here. And unsurprisingly - because the SOL in wada code is a single sentence unconditional, so hardly open to interpretation
CAS does not have the power to change WADA code, much as it might like to do so.

In the end the question is equitable judgement. It is errant nonsense that Riis retains his TdF title despite admitting doping, whilst Lance is stripped of his.

I am not surprised you argue that it has different context - when you cannot even spell Hellebuyck correctly.

One of the reasons SOL in the Hellebuyck case was tolled was because of "fraudulent concealment" - as he lied under oath just like Lance.

 

[Hugh Januss]

SSDD

Just repeating the same story over and over does not make it true.

 

[mountainrman]

The SOL is a rule, not the rule. It’s just a convention. Limit could be ten or six years, now it’s eight, for no special reason.

It’s absolutely right to point out what separates this case from others: it’s the scope, the duration, the criminal actions taken on other riders, staff, officials. Therefore, and more so with the violations of civil and penal laws in mind, there is no justification to protect the results of a performance, that was based not only on broken rules, but also on lawbreaking and perjury, and this not coincidentally or individually, but following a plan, pursued by a group of people (Armstrong, Bruyneel, Weisel etc.).

We’re not talking about a single rider, who made a mistake, who is due to our forgiveness and whom we should help to keep at least some of his rewards, because in the end it was still sportsmanship which helped him get these.

We’re talking about a criminal organisation making a three-digit amount of millions of dollars by maintaining a huge fraud over more than a decade.

The only thing to protect here is the sport and the people who maintain it by fair means. Wonderboy has never done right, so he has never won anything that could be spared from being stripped off him.

Now do me a favour and go back to your mountains.

You may decide that the death sentence is appropriate for Lance. But that is mob rule speaking. In a civilised world there are rules, and the rules must be enforced without fear or favour. If the rules say 8 years SOL, then 8 years it is until changed. And it should not matter who or which country the rule is the same for all.

If the rules say 2 year ban UCI cannot ethically extend it by using "blacklists" as it does.

Following your logic you should be berating Hincapie as much. Bet you do not!

I have pointed out that Hincapie got off far too lightly in equitable judgement because the system is NOT working.

Hincapie was a career doper for over a decade before and after he met lance so his doping cannot be blamed on lance.
He was also the main lieutenant in this conspiracy - and as any number of legal precedents have stated "the boss told me to do it - the Nazi defence" is no defence.

(in fact in some jurisdictions it is even worse - the "joint enterprise" legislation UK means just being there is enough to be charged with the crime, even if yo did not take part in it!).

The crime is doping and conspiracy to dope, for a decade, and supply (he owned up to it, on at least one occasion from memory, lending each other EPO) and so Hincapie is 100% guilty.

But he got off because (a) he is liked (b) he did not win was not good enough or preferred to help others (c) he was good enough at cheating to not get caught. NONE of those (a) (b) or (c) should matter in determining sanction. He did not own up either until the feds pointed a gun at his head, and reminded him of Marion jones - he certainly did not come clean till after he retired, so it cost him nothing. So no points there...

What he should have done is as a minimum distance himself from it , and preferably speak out. He did neither. He joined in for the best part of a decade, knowing what was going on, and as the main supporter of lances victories, and we only have his word he quit afterwards. (he would say that, wouldnt he! - although clearly there is no evidence to prove otherwise either)

So for him to get off free - is further proof the system does not work ,and the sentences handed out are abitrary. Whether you are liked by Tygart or not. (just like contador and the spanish)!

Hincapie should get a life ban for doping, conspiracy to dope, and owning up to supplying on occasion - perhaps commuted to 2 years for owning up in the end at the point of a gun. He got off scott free in essence.


My repeated issue is - the rules should be rules whoever you are, they should be sanctioned by people with no national ties to avoid variations in whether you are liked by your federation, and should be sanctioned outside UCI who are conflicted. The prosecutors case (that USADA document,) then is at least viewed with critical balance alongside any defence so that judge and prosecutor are not the same.

Allof you here - just because you approve of the severity of the sentence for Lance matters not a jot. It is whether it is the right penalty according to the rules that matters, without which is anarchy.

 

[Velodude]

Mountainrman:

If you ever travel from your homeland in UK to one of its former colonies, Australia, you may come across this slang expression:

"Like a shag on a rock"

A shag is a marine bird and the expression means "completely alone".

That is where you stand on this argument - like Robinson Crusoe.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Here's my contribution to the discussion:

- I want a single set of rules too

Some Skittles and a unicorn would be easier to get.

No sovereign nation is going to give up their right to make and enforce laws to make it easier on you and the IOC to permit doping.

Give it up.

 

[ValleyFlowers]

That may be true as the transcript of judgement but the WADA code is absolute in respect of SOL and that judgement may be suspect

In any event many commentators legally qualified are saying the same - DESPITE Tygarts documents to the contrary. ie that judgement of CAS to allow countries to redefine a clear WADA code in respect of their own countries SOL legislation is clearly suspect in the minds of many qualified to say so.

"The WADA code is absolute in respect of SOL"? Not hardly.

A ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport isn't 'suspect' just because some 'legally qualified commentators' say so.

Considering your classification scheme, Travis Tygart is also a 'legally qualified commentator'.

So, in spite of the UCI squirming and whining plus the dissenting 'legally qualified commentators' I seriously doubt WADA is going to act just because you feel they should.

 

[DirtyWorks]

In a civilised world there are rules, and the rules must be enforced without fear or favour.

That's what USADA did.

I'm such a nice guy! I'll repeat the answer you refuse to hear another way.

Is the SOL a legitimate issue for Wonderboy? If it were, Wonderboy would test it. He can't. The ruling is a Pandora's box that Wonderboy cannot touch for legitimate risk of perjury and from there, felony charges.

Maybe it's too much time living in your parent's basement, but your urgent sense of a consistent set of rules enforced consistently is pure fiction.

 

[summerhill]

Mountainrman:

If you ever travel from your homeland in UK to one of its former colonies, Australia, you may come across this slang expression:

"Like a shag on a rock"

A shag is a marine bird and the expression means "completely alone".

That is where you stand on this argument - like Robinson Crusoe.

I doubt mountainrman's homeland is the UK. It's more likely to be Belgium.