Merckx index said:
This is a prime example of a red herring. The issue is not whether one agency is better than another. The issue is the respective roles of the to follow up on it, USADA would still have the right to develop the case, anyway.
I understand all of this, but its not really addressing my concerns.
We have one pot of evidence. USADA is saying it means LA doped. Everyone involved is sayings that the UCI is going to have a different conclusion. So who is the judge of which one is right?
By all accounts it's CAS. USADA can hold its panel, and then there are several appeals and it gets to ... CAS.
Both bodies develop evidence that garner convictions. When are they final?
WADA accredited lab finds clen in Contador's system. Regardless of what the two sides looking at that test thought. CAS ended it. It just took months to work it's way up there.
Pellozottis blood passport violation? CONI not so convinced. CAS? Who cares what you think. Final - move the hell on.
If USADA has developed a solid body of evidence than they have filled their jurisdictional role quite well. You cannot be prosecuted and judge however. That is, if anything, a bigger potential conflict of interest than the UCI - which at least wants to dupe people into thinking the peloton is clean right?
This process is overly bureaucratic, rife with needless pit stops that seem to produce little more than acrimony and press leaks .... Until it gets to CAS.
Welcome to the modern world! Every organization has a vested interest. If you think vested interests are a problem, you must be an anarchist, extent controlled.
#1 - I agree with you. I just want to point out that someone ratted me out to the mods for making the same point, albeit less gracefully.
#2 - the vested interests have huge potential to introduce bias into the adjudication of the one pot of evidence. Who is the arbiter?
If USADA wants to fill the role of prosecutor, good. The UCI however, is not the cyclists union and not really capable of offering defense. Nevertheless, it's being backed into that role. If the UCI is the defense, so be it. Good.
Unfortunately, we spent months forking around, or years, getting that one body of evidence to a court where someone issues a final decision.
The vested interests of USADA are controlled or challenged by several competing vested interests. First, LA could have appealed the USADA decision, but chose interest. There is no guarantee that a challenge to a vested interest will be successful. The right to challenge is basic, the right to win the challenge is not.
Well, whether you like or hate LA, the fact remains, if we presume innocence, I would have done the same thing LA did. We all, using what I would assume is a little objectivity, know the outcome of that hearing even though it will not happen. Again, a prosecutor cannot be judge. Issue your verdict, I will see you at CAS. I will invest time and expense in a venue that actually matters, issue your verdict please.
The part that bothers me on a personal level is the reasoning to hide witnesses. As serious as this is, it's not like we are in Columbian jungles fighting FARC. there actions that help, and actions that inflame. And the claims of witness intimidation, though I have no doubt that omertà is a serious problem in AD efforts, put a circus feeling on the process.
If UCI does not agree with USADA’s decision after seeing the files, they can appeal to CAS. This is yet another way in which vested interests can be challenged.
Ok, let's put ourselves in the role of objective overseer of this process. A prosecutor, USADA, says ******bag is guilty and I a have overwhelming evidence to prove it. The defense offers a shoulder shrug. All parties agree that 30 days later the evidence will be shared and the process begun. 30 days go by and the prosecutor says he need more time with no explanation ... Bearing in mind his first statement. If you were a judge over seeing that, would, "the defense is corrupt!" Really do it for you?
Or might you have some doubt creeping in?
Again, you must be implacably opposed to all forms of government. I can’t think of a single nation on earth in which the decision-making process is not at times “acrimonious, inefficient, and rife with interests. Surely that is a much better example than the USADA case against LA. Congressmen and women don’t even pretend not to be biased. Why aren’t you suggesting a radical reformation of American government?
I don't think it takes much imagination to to produce a system that it less acrimonious, cantankerous, dysfunctional, ineffective, and systemically undermining itself than the current process.
I have met more than a few congressmen from both sides of the aisle. Whatever they do in public, for the most part, behind the scenes they are honorable men and women who acknowledge the diversity of the country they represent. Most are driven by a keen desire to serve others. I think they would work better if the TV cameras just got out of the way. The same could be said of cycling leaks.
Now, if the Republican Party ran itself like cycling currently is, it would fall apart in short order. Everyone in this process claims that they are anti-doping. And yet we make Congress look placid, and the Republican Party look like a model of efficiency and consensus by comparison.
This system is not restoring credibility to cycling. It remains mired in suspicion and innuendo. Other sports have had just as serious doping problems, with a LOT less acrimony. There are clearly better ways.
USADA offered to take it to CAS. But only LA could initiate that step, prior to the regular appeal process, and he chose not to.
He has not seen the evidence, and has no desire to go before what he believes is a kangaroo court. He also knows that the rules say it has to go to the UCI. He does have lawyers working for him. Whatever else, he's not stupid. Again, this process unfolds.
Some questions for you:
1) How will UCI rebut the charges? Multiple witnesses have testified that LA not only doped but directed that other riders dope. In the Introduction to Tyler’s witnesses happened. There is no one who can or will say, I was with LA at that particular time on that particular date, and he was not in that room getting a transfusion. That being the case, what is the basis for a rebuttal?
That is not what they said. USADA said witnesses. The riders a likely Floyd and Tyler. Beyond that, it open. Are they the Andreau's? Greg Lemond? Ballaster?
Again, I hope there is more, but much of what I have read to this point is Tyler feeding Floyd and Floyd feeding Tyler. I personally think that Tyler is a credible witness, but Floyd brings more baggage to the issue than a dump truck. I certainly hope that there are other riders who corroborate. If not? It's Tyler vs Armstrong.
2) Even LA does not dispute that his teammates doped. Did he know about it at the time? If not, how could this be possible? He was one of the most hands-on, detail-oriented leaders ever. OTOH, if he did know, wasn’t he complicit in not reporting it?
That is speculation, not evidence. I realize that probably ****es you off, but the burden of a prosecutor is not to simply ask the question. It's to lay everything out and then ask the question in a manner that leaves no doubt. Why did no riders test positive while riding with US postal?
3) If LA is innocent of all charges, why is he not appealing? USADA has no more control over the composition of the How exactly is the process tilted so that an innocent person could think he had no chance of proving he was not guilty?
You are asking a state of mind question. Who knows? Who says that once this evidence is out LA, like Roger Clemens, will not do just that?
Do you know Lances state of mind?
4) Why is LA saying he has no faith in the USADA process, when, a few months so, what happened to change his mind? Do you lose faith in an investigative process just because you don’t agree with its findings?
LA has made very clear delineations between the USADA and DOJ investigations. Indeed the DOJ apparently refused to cooperate with the USADA investigation, which raises a few eye brows about intent does it not?
Again, not saying USADA has done a poor job collecting evidence, but cheery picking quotes about investigations is not evidence. LA has been quite vocal about his opinion of the USADA process. And remember, he's not stupid.
Also, remember that judge in the civil case gave LA the right to bring the claim back to court without prejudice as this process unfolds. LA is not stupid.
5) In his initial challenge to USADA, LA claimed they did not have jurisdiction to pursue charges against him. this point in the very beginning, when he learned that USADA was investigating him? Wouldn’t that have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble?
So did US cycling, which gets back to what I was saying initially.
The point is that the civil case was dismissed without prejudice, and LA can bring it back if further evidence of his concerns are found. We will not know that until the evidence is released.
Again, apologies if that comes off overly combative. The intent is merely to demonstrate that there is a prosecutor and a defense. Who is the arbiter? CAS. I fail to see what anything short of that is accomplishing with the same pot of evidence. Make the case, then accept the result.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram