Someone mentioned all this shaking the very core of cycling. That seems to be true from what I have read and holding all this out till the end of cycling season (we still have a couple of major races coming) will help ease the pain a bit maybe. I am sure the race organizers can agree to that.
-
Willing to volunteer time as a moderator? We'd love to hear from you!
- Status
- May 26, 2010
- 28,143
- 5
- 0
Jack Aubrey said:
Or we can wait for Oct 15 + 21 days, which UCI have to respond then celebrate that officially* Armstrong has been stripped of everything since 1998. Then we start with UCI, while ensuring that the anti-doping is to be a fully independent body.
Are you sure you wouldn't like to go back to the end of July 2005 and draw a line?
*I say officially, but i consider the USADA decision to be official.
- Sep 10, 2009
- 5,663
- 0
- 0
It's not that difficult to understand. There's a mountain of newly-emerged evidence that this particular American athlete was doping and they're acting on it, which is what they're supposed to do. Why do you have such a problem with that? You sound kind of bitter.Jack Aubrey said:
noddy69 said:
So which agency does have jurisdiction? The UCI, WADA, IOC, French Ministery of Sport, Greg LeMond? The Hog? US Cycling? USADA? US Justic Department? THe French Gerndermie?
All of those agencies, and many concerned citizens, apparently have a mandate to investigate anti-doping. And the issue isn't that there is evidence out there, its that these institutions fight over what the evidence means ... and it takes years to get things to CAS to get a result with any finality while all the players continue to stir to pot.
There was an article here in cyclingnews a whiel back that essentially said, criminalize the process. Stop pretending that arbitration is quick, cheap, or painless, and use the same adversarial system that every other court uses. A verdict is now based on the preponderance of the evidence in a professional court with no links to either LeMond (the newspaper), WADA, or the UCI - ala the Vrijman Report.
16 years to gather one conviction, which we are still not there yet, with more recusals and animosity than tha Hatfield and McCoys. Seems, oddly efficient doesn't it?
That remains to be seen doesn't it. As it will be released, and then hashed oever and the great Lance Hater vs Lover debate will continue ... until CAS gets involved.
Why pretend that anything short of CAS is even helping this situation?
It is contested by JB. It is also required by the agencies seeking to enact the penalty asked for by USADA. Its not there.
And its going to wind up at CAS, if not by the UCI, then by someone else.
Because is an actual open hearing, you are given the evidence in advance and BOTH sides are afforded an opportunity to examine the evidence and issue a proper rebuttal under a timeline set by a court ... not the agency setting up the trial, the jury, and the time table, all under the threat of immediate consequences while deliberately withholding witness names ... because a doping cyclist is actually equivalent to the mophia?
Paul Ashenden makes the same claims about omerta being strong (and apparently not just caused by Lance) and lists a bunch of cyclists who have confessed doping to him. Why do they not come forward now?
And the real problem with such antics is that they are secretive, and unless they are self implicating, they are rumors.
Its Joe Papp, whom I respect, or ... anonymous.
In short, the question is: Are we attempting to 'get Lance' or are we attempting to ride cycling of doping? If its the former, well played. If its the later? We have serious issues.
gree0232 said:
you seem to have now clue about
1) difference between DoJ / USADA case
2) reason why DoJ investigation was ceased
3) USADA, its code and the way it operates
4) numerous aspects of the USADA vs Lance case
5) etc.
So before bull****ting and trolling, please research first and get your act together in order you can discuss on the same qualified level as most other posters here.
Above was referring to your earlier posts, just saw the last one:
-I know French is difficult, but it's Gendarmerie and Le Monde
-Isn't it Dr. Mike Ashenden? Paul Ashenden??? But maybe I'm wrong, don't hang me for that... or is this a mix of Paul Kimmage and Mike Ashenden? (Btw, don't expect anybody new to come forward as long as corrupt Lance buddies run the UCI)
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
la.margna said:
Well, I am sure anger and accusing anyone who disagrees with this process of rabid trolling (which is trolling), counts for something.
Its a simple question: How many different people and agencies have looked at LA? Will any of them result in anything final until CAS gets involved?
I know, Ahab has the harpoon ready, so, why have a debate about the whaling process when we are so close to getting the white whale?
And no, Ashenden published an article on Omerta just recently.
Calm the anger a bit and realize than evidence and impartiality have to be the back bones of a system. And when the system is so off kilter that even questioning the not yet presented evidence results in rabid responses? Well, its a safe bet that after 16 years of mutual recrimination, what we no longer have as in impartial, objective anti-doping system.
Again, as Paul Aschenden explain, cyclings are still coming forward with confessions about doping. So, are we getting Lance or expunging doping from cycling here?
the big ring said:
I won't have to. Its going to happen. The Lance lovers will have their day to shine as well. And that makes you, and a lot of others, really angry, eh?
Why? Do accussed persons not have a right to rebuttal?
THAT is the problem.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
- Jun 19, 2009
- 13,250
- 1
- 0
gree0232 said:
The only person who is angry is you - and its rather obvious that you didn't even read "la'margnas' post even though you replied to it.
Telmisartan new
BANNED
- Jul 13, 2012
- 342
- 0
- 9,280
gree0232 said:
accused quitters waive their rights to rebutt.
i am neutral on the has-been. much fresher fish to fry eh what, ol chap!?
tally ho!
- Aug 7, 2010
- 1,247
- 0
- 0
gree0232 said:
In a few weeks virtually every one of your posts will be made to appear even more ridiculous than they appear at the moment, if such a thing could be imagined.
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 883
- 19,680
It seems to me there is a good chance that the delay is due, at least in part, to either:
a) evidence for a claim that previously was not substantiated;
or
b) a deal of some kind in the works.
Wrt a), USADA claimed it had a very strong case against LA and the others back in June. They should not need further evidence to that effect, and if further evidence has come in since then, it could just be put into an Appendix. Most likely, any new riders who have come forward are only corroborating claims that have been made by the original ten plus. It shouldn’t require weeks or months of revision to add this material.
But evidence of UCI complicity is a different story. All Tyler had was one statement by LA, which would not get very far in court. I doubt very much other riders, except maybe George, have any more evidence that LA was protected. But recently there have been stories about how testers were told to stay away, or come in late, or notify LA in advance, etc. It’s possible that in the past few months some of the key players involved in these stories have come forward and spilled. Testimony like this would require a lot further time and work to incorporate into the charges. Not just to list it all, but to follow up on it. If one former tester made a claim like this, USADA would want to talk to all of his/her colleagues as well, possibly using the same tactics of reduced penalties for cooperation that they presumably used on the riders.
Moreover, substantial evidence of protection would radically increase the seriousness of the charges against LA. It would also make a very strong argument for extending the SOL, a better argument than what USADA currently is thought to have. Not to mention putting the UCI on the hot seat. All of these consequences would take a lot of time to sort through.
Wrt b), neither the UCI nor any of the defendants wants to see the evidence become public. Maybe the delay is occurring because they are trying to work out a way of avoiding this. RR said that the evidence would go public, and if UCI were trying to make a deal that it would not, you wouldn’t think McQ would be publicly questioning the delay. But the most recent delay from the end of Sept. to mid-October might have something to do with an agreement on what evidence would and would not go public--particularly if some of this evidence is very damning to the UCI. If, as Python suggests, the evidence is already in the hands of some UCI officials, they might well be talking behind the scenes to USADA.
Edit: According to the latest CN story, McQ is again questioning the delay, so if a deal is going on, he apparently is not in on it. But the story also says there has been recent contact between USADA and UCI. I continue to think that if new testimony is coming in, it's about matters that were previously not substantiated. After all, this testimony could continue to come in indefinitely, there would be no way USADA could promise a final document in October if it wanted to wait for all of it. But if they are really prepared to show UCI what they have in a few weeks, they must have a good reason for arbitrarily cutting off further testimony.
a) evidence for a claim that previously was not substantiated;
or
b) a deal of some kind in the works.
Wrt a), USADA claimed it had a very strong case against LA and the others back in June. They should not need further evidence to that effect, and if further evidence has come in since then, it could just be put into an Appendix. Most likely, any new riders who have come forward are only corroborating claims that have been made by the original ten plus. It shouldn’t require weeks or months of revision to add this material.
But evidence of UCI complicity is a different story. All Tyler had was one statement by LA, which would not get very far in court. I doubt very much other riders, except maybe George, have any more evidence that LA was protected. But recently there have been stories about how testers were told to stay away, or come in late, or notify LA in advance, etc. It’s possible that in the past few months some of the key players involved in these stories have come forward and spilled. Testimony like this would require a lot further time and work to incorporate into the charges. Not just to list it all, but to follow up on it. If one former tester made a claim like this, USADA would want to talk to all of his/her colleagues as well, possibly using the same tactics of reduced penalties for cooperation that they presumably used on the riders.
Moreover, substantial evidence of protection would radically increase the seriousness of the charges against LA. It would also make a very strong argument for extending the SOL, a better argument than what USADA currently is thought to have. Not to mention putting the UCI on the hot seat. All of these consequences would take a lot of time to sort through.
Wrt b), neither the UCI nor any of the defendants wants to see the evidence become public. Maybe the delay is occurring because they are trying to work out a way of avoiding this. RR said that the evidence would go public, and if UCI were trying to make a deal that it would not, you wouldn’t think McQ would be publicly questioning the delay. But the most recent delay from the end of Sept. to mid-October might have something to do with an agreement on what evidence would and would not go public--particularly if some of this evidence is very damning to the UCI. If, as Python suggests, the evidence is already in the hands of some UCI officials, they might well be talking behind the scenes to USADA.
Edit: According to the latest CN story, McQ is again questioning the delay, so if a deal is going on, he apparently is not in on it. But the story also says there has been recent contact between USADA and UCI. I continue to think that if new testimony is coming in, it's about matters that were previously not substantiated. After all, this testimony could continue to come in indefinitely, there would be no way USADA could promise a final document in October if it wanted to wait for all of it. But if they are really prepared to show UCI what they have in a few weeks, they must have a good reason for arbitrarily cutting off further testimony.
- Aug 13, 2009
- 12,854
- 1
- 0
- Aug 9, 2010
- 6,255
- 2
- 17,485
Race Radio said:
very interesting.
Apparently, people with direct or indirect knowledge of what went on in the dark era are massively jumping on the USADA bandwagon.
This gowna be good.
What is the big deal with the delay? Didn't Lance's legal team ask for several during the failed lawsuit?
Also, posters here are feeding a troll from the days-of-old of this forum. Maybe even pre-BPC....
Also, posters here are feeding a troll from the days-of-old of this forum. Maybe even pre-BPC....
Race Radio said:
The really big downside of Armstrong's absentia ploy is that everything is evidence. No standard,no subject to examination of any kind. Even the USADA allowing the floating end point to Lance's conviction shows his legal team did him no service by advising him to do this. 1998? Murder has this statute of limitation but very few crimes in the "regular" criminal justice system.
Armstrong says its time to move on, meanwhile the USADA has not even stopped his case. The kangaroo is still hopping along, good work Luskin!!
- Mar 17, 2009
- 1,863
- 0
- 0
Originally there was talk of a November hearing if Armstrong chose to defend himself. But by declining arbitration he forced USADA to speed up its process. Perhaps something they didn't expect?
- May 2, 2009
- 736
- 7
- 9,995
Has anyone discussed the "30 times more intense" statement in this or one of the many other threads? I take that to mean that 30 people were involved with this conspiracy.
the big ring said:
THe agencies that actualkly sanction do not. And remember, LA chose not to contest the charges in a USADA hearing. He did not say, "Nothing will ever happen!"
I really don;t care whether Lance doped or not. After 16 years of watching both side angrily shread each other, what is the point? Our sport suffers, and fans look rabid.
What's to worry about?
Papa Tygart is going to fix all this ... when he eventually produces the evidence, whihc will be rebutted, which will eventually wind up in CAS, before finally being settled.
And in case you forgot, what I said from the very beginning of this is that evidence must be what drives the process. 16 years to collect evidence ... and we still haven't brought it to trial. Nor are we likely to any time soon.
What a wonderfully effective and efficient process. Clearly this is what cyling needs?
http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...a-over-armstrong-file-in-press-release_240101
"The UCI wonders why it is taking USADA so long to provide its reasoned decision and case file.
Reports state that its decision has been delayed because it is continuing to gather evidence and that it has yet to complete its case file.
“The UCI had no reason to assume that a full case file did not exist but USADA’s continued failure to produce the decision is now a cause for concern,” said Mr McQuaid, UCI President.
“It is over a month since USADA sanctioned Lance Armstrong. We thought that USADA were better prepared before initiating these proceedings” said Mr McQuaid.
It seems that it would have been more useful for USADA to have used the time of the Tour de France, the Olympic Games and the Road World Championships to prepare their case in full rather than to make announcements.
It is at very least unusual that USADA would still be gathering evidence against a person after it has found that person guilty."
So, there are a couple of possibilities here:
#1 - I work for the UCI and I just KNEW this was going to happen and, like the Hog, wantd to get in front of it?
#2 - the pattern of the past 16 years is easily identifiable, that this was inevitable.
Those who understand the legal process, and, unofrtuantely what this process is, know that this is not over.
Are the Lance Haters prepared for that systemic inevitablity?
"The UCI wonders why it is taking USADA so long to provide its reasoned decision and case file.
Reports state that its decision has been delayed because it is continuing to gather evidence and that it has yet to complete its case file.
“The UCI had no reason to assume that a full case file did not exist but USADA’s continued failure to produce the decision is now a cause for concern,” said Mr McQuaid, UCI President.
“It is over a month since USADA sanctioned Lance Armstrong. We thought that USADA were better prepared before initiating these proceedings” said Mr McQuaid.
It seems that it would have been more useful for USADA to have used the time of the Tour de France, the Olympic Games and the Road World Championships to prepare their case in full rather than to make announcements.
It is at very least unusual that USADA would still be gathering evidence against a person after it has found that person guilty."
So, there are a couple of possibilities here:
#1 - I work for the UCI and I just KNEW this was going to happen and, like the Hog, wantd to get in front of it?
#2 - the pattern of the past 16 years is easily identifiable, that this was inevitable.
Those who understand the legal process, and, unofrtuantely what this process is, know that this is not over.
Are the Lance Haters prepared for that systemic inevitablity?
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Paris-Roubaix 2025, one day monument, April 13 (men)- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Amstel Gold Race 2025, one day classic, April 20 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 821
-
-
Ronde van Vlaanderen 2025, one day monument, April 6 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 2K
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Teams & Riders Fausto Masnada - 'King of the Mountains'- Latest: Hugh Januss
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram