• 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 should appeal the Lance Armstrong title strip on SOL

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
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.

The Italian national team do not pick ex dopers.They are not banned for life any more, but they still don't get picked.
 
Oct 25, 2012
7
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
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.


Ok to start of with nobody is suggesting a death sentence that is a complete over exaggeration and does nothing for your case in fact it does the exact opposite and is completely erroneous to this discussion.

Secondly, in the UK some parts of the police and CPS reduce and sometimes doesn't even prosecute people involved in crimes to allow them to get evidence to prosecute another person(s) that they believe to be more important to convict. There are arguments against the use of this practice but they aren't under discussion here and irrespective of that it seems to me that the approach taken by the USADA is reflective of the legal system in the UK, which although it has its faults is broadly pretty good. My suggestion would be that this is completely normal behaviour by the authorities and that aspect of your argument doesn't hold water.

Hincapie may well have gotten of too lightly, however having a sworn affidavit from him was a significant piece of the evidence against LA and there is no doubt that it made the USADA case carry significantly more weight as the relationship between Hincapie and LA was so close for so many years. With respect to who would be seen as the more important of the two to be able to bring to 'justice' for the USADA it is clearly LA, for most non-cyclists they wouldn't even know who he was. I've just done a quick straw poll, using a sample of 1 so the data or should I say datum shows that in the house of a cyclist my wife has absolutely no idea who Hincapie is. Therefore it seem to make total sense that the USADA would go for LA over everybody else even if it meant that some less important people would end up being given reduced bans etc.

Had Hincapie not been cooperative with the FEDs and following USADA investigation he would have probably suffered the same as LA and would be included with Bruyneel, Ferrari, et al. the fact is he helped/confessed and they gave him a lesser sentence even though it came at the 11th hour

My final thought would be that your argument is based around fairness, well who said any of this was fair the fact is that it isn't and quite often life isn't fair. Everyone plays they're hand with some being better at playing than others and you get what you get. If you are dishonest the best you can hope for is you get away with it a lightly as possible, however you should fully expect to get what you get and anyone who performs the kind of deception LA did during his cycling career should have gone into it knowing that at some point he may get caught and it he did it would be game over. So in the end Hincapie played his hand better than Lance, it turns out Laughing George as he was known by myself and my cycling friend who so many times managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory in the final roll of his dice managed to grab victory out of the jaws of defeat.

Would I prefer to have seem all the people who were involved in doping go down, you bet. However that was never going to happen, the USADA needed the likes of Hincapie to support their case. So as a second option I'd prefer to see those at the very top of the sport get their just deserts and if that means some of them getting of lightly so be it. Because as bad as it is, its only sport.
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Interesting read. Interesting topic. Interesting discussion. Mostly.

Dear Bergrmann, I don't see anyone (official) who his willing to burn his hands on Lance.
Even the Imperator would drop Lance now, to not put the dark side into any trouble.
There is a German saying:
Ausnahmen bestätigen die Regel. Exceptions prove the rule.
That's how things go.

Much respect for the way you handle the clinic trolls. Sovereign, without losing selfcontrol. Really. :D

D-Queued said:
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.



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

Hope all is well.

Dave.

Dave....did someone again dial Zero, or why did you show up again ?!?
Must be hard for you that no one is asking for your identity.
May I ask you for your identitty ? buhhhh...

Velodude said:
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.

trek99.jpg

Just for your information: He had Friday with him.
We can change his name to Tuesday, just for the clinic saints. A real insider joke. ahahaaaa
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
Visit site
Velodude said:
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.

trek99.jpg

Alone amongst the clinic lynch squad perhaps.

But a lot of legal minds say Tygart was wrong including one ex CAS judge, and UCIs own legal advice.

As one legal commentator observed - few dare speak out against this injustice for fear of being branded " armstrong supporter"
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
...<snip>....
Just for your information: He had Friday with him.
We can change his name to Tuesday, just for the clinic saints. A real insider joke. ahahaaaa

Thats a load of cobblers!

Friday, who he could not communicate with initially, was there only for the last 4 of 28 years.

Crusoe had no human contact of 24 years.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
Alone amongst the clinic lynch squad perhaps.

But a lot of legal minds say Tygart was wrong including one ex CAS judge, and UCIs own legal advice.

As one legal commentator observed - few dare speak out against this injustice for fear of being branded " armstrong supporter"

You have yet to show where this "injustice" is.

The SOL issue was tolled because of the "fraudulent concealment" - job done.

If you want to bring up George yet again and suggest that he got a reduced sentence because he "liked" then I may just get you to show me the document in the USADA decision that says that.
 
Wrt Hincapie: Like so many others, you ignore the retrospective portion of the bans, which are much longer than the six month prospective bans. GH lost more than two years of results from 2004-2006, including a P-R podium and a TDF stage win, among others, surely among his most prized palmares. If LA had confessed like GH, he would have kept most of his TDF titles, according to Tygart. So let’s dismiss, once and for all, the flawed argument that GH or any of the other witnesses—and Riis case belongs here ,too--got more favorable treatment than LA. LA lost everything because he was unwilling to cooperate. Had he cooperated, he probably would have lost so little—one or two of his original seven titles--that many here would be complaining about how he got off too easily.

I agree with you that the SOL extension should be tested in court at some point. However, as others here noted, if LA was unwilling to appeal to do this, why should anyone else on his behalf? Jesus, LA supposedly has far more resources to mount an appeal than even WADA does, why should someone else have to run interference for him? You know as well as everyone else that LA thought he could subvert the system by arguing technicalities in U.S. courts. Having failed that, why should an argument about anti-doping being a truly international procedure be used to extend his case? LA tried to use the U.S. legal system on his behalf, now you are arguing it is unfair that USADA did the same thing?

Your arguments about Hellebuyck simply make the obvious point that the situation was somewhat different from LA’s. So what? The case clearly showed that the SOL can be tolled, and that one justification for tolling is when the athlete lied about his doping earlier. USADA clearly has a case for tolling here. Is it air-tight? No. Is it possible it could be overturned on appeal? Yes. I pointed out months ago that this was a very weak aspect of USADA’s case.

But it was up to LA to test that, not others. If USADA had completely flouted rules in tolling, made up some rule out of whole cloth or simply ignored a steadfast rule, then a case could be made that WADA or someone should appeal. But in fact they have made a reasonable case for tolling. They have made a decision that is debateable, that has supporters on either sides. There is no reason not to let a decision of that nature stand until some other athlete decides to test it. In every modern legal system, there are decisions handed down constantly which are not slam dunk, and which may later be challenged and overturned. But if they are reasonable decisions, there is no reason why the legal system itself has to challenge them. Challenges can and do await for a specific individual adversely affected by the decision to take action.

As a practical note, if a case is appealed to WADA, it means it starts de novo. IOW, in principle, if the case were appealed, CAS could rule not only that the SOL applied, but that in fact LA was not guilty of any charges. Not saying this is likely, but why in the world would WADA want to take that chance?
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
1
0
Visit site
Velodude said:
Thats a load of cobblers!

Friday, who he could not communicate with initially, was there only for the last 4 of 28 years.

Crusoe had no human contact of 24 years.

That would be true, if it would be true.
Completely alone for 24 years. But really completely alone ?
I am quiet sure that there was some life on the shag's rock.

Glad mountainrman didn't have to wait for 24 years for some people to contribute to his thread and share his concerns or just parts of it, even after Anus has ended the discussion early.

Looking forward to some more of your contributions, even when they are just as useful as tits on a bull.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
Alone amongst the clinic lynch squad perhaps.

But a lot of legal minds say Tygart was wrong including one ex CAS judge, and UCIs own legal advice.

As one legal commentator observed - few dare speak out against this injustice for fear of being branded " armstrong supporter"

Lots? Name one whose income does not come from dopers. While you are at it please name one presents a valid argument. All we have see is Fabiani talking points
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestoned said:
That would be true, if it would be true.
Completely alone for 24 years. But really completely alone ?
I am quiet sure that there was some life on the shag's rock.

Glad mountainrman didn't have to wait for 24 years for some people to contribute to his thread and share his concerns or just parts of it, even after Anus has ended the discussion early.

Looking forward to some more of your contributions, even when they are just as useful as tits on a bull.

You had better have a spiritual communication with Daniel Defoe, the author of the fictional book, to challenge his concept that Robinson Crusoe was alone for 24 years. :rolleyes:
 
Sep 16, 2010
226
0
0
Visit site
mountainrman said:
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...


An attorney that defends dopers thinks Lance should appeal. Makes sense now doesn't it. I bet Fabiani, and Herman think he should appeal to. But wait Lance lost that chance by excepting the charges. Sit up straight and pay attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.