Hincapie too

124»

Comments

  • Spiny_Norman
    Spiny_Norman Posts: 128
    As an aside, do you think the UCI will remove wins that far back? It's not like the runners up were clean either:

    1999 - Zulle
    2000 - Ullrich
    2001 - Ullrich
    2002 - Beloki (OK, so cleared of involvement in Puerto by the Spanish authorities, but still)
    2003 - Ullrich
    2004 - Kloden
    2005 - Basso

    Andy
    I can't imagine the UCI would want to open that can of worms, which would end up being as ridiculous as Hamilton's medal going to Ekimov. But if they start feeling the pressure from the Tour de Suisse test and get thinking about throwing people under the bus, who knows?
    N00b commuter with delusions of competence

    FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?
  • andrewjoseph
    andrewjoseph Posts: 2,165
    jibberjim wrote:
    Just finishd reading 'from lance to landis'. the panel that decided to case heard all the testimony from the andrue's, heard lemonds tape of mcillvain admitting that lance told he doctors he took PEDs, then decided SCA had to pay out as there was no cheating clause.

    The judge didn't decide anything, they went to arbitration, now you could well decide that SCA did that because they thought they'd lose - however no judge ruled on the contract.

    Ok, but I never mentioned a judge, I said a 'panel'.
    --
    Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails
  • BikingBernie
    BikingBernie Posts: 2,163
    edited May 2011
    jibberjim wrote:
    Just finishd reading 'from lance to landis'. the panel that decided to case heard all the testimony from the andrue's, heard lemonds tape of mcillvain admitting that lance told he doctors he took PEDs, then decided SCA had to pay out as there was no cheating clause.
    The judge didn't decide anything, they went to arbitration, now you could well decide that SCA did that because they thought they'd lose - however no judge ruled on the contract.
    Story is that Bob Hamman, the owner of SCA, was told very early on that, due to they way the contract was worded, they would have to pay up. However he was so pissed at being screwed by Armstrong that he went ahead anyway so as to get as much information into the public arena as was possible.
  • jibberjim
    jibberjim Posts: 2,810
    jibberjim wrote:
    Just finishd reading 'from lance to landis'. the panel that decided to case heard all the testimony from the andrue's, heard lemonds tape of mcillvain admitting that lance told he doctors he took PEDs, then decided SCA had to pay out as there was no cheating clause.

    The judge didn't decide anything, they went to arbitration, now you could well decide that SCA did that because they thought they'd lose - however no judge ruled on the contract.

    Ok, but I never mentioned a judge, I said a 'panel'.

    There's no panel either - there was no decision made by anyone other than the parties SCA/Tailwind - it was decided amoung themselves in arbitration.
    Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/
  • andrewjoseph
    andrewjoseph Posts: 2,165
    edited May 2011
    JIm,

    My understanding (after reading the book) is that SCA and Lance's team presented evidence to a panel, whether that is the arbitration panel, I am not sure. But I'm fairly certain it was not one person who made the decision. If it was more than one person then I would think it would be a panel.

    Arbitration works by having an independent panel of several people who listen to both sides and make a decision.

    If both parties settle amongst themselves then there is no need of arbitration. Of course, both parties can settle during arbitration. I don't think that is what happened but I'm ready to be corrected.
    --
    Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails
  • jibberjim
    jibberjim Posts: 2,810
    My understanding (after reading the book) is that SCA and Lance's team presented evidence to a panel, whether that is the arbitration panel, I am not sure. But I'm fairly certain it was not one person who made the decision. If it was more than one person then I would think it would be a panel.

    But the point is no decision was actually made - not the composition of the panel - during the evidence being given before it had finished any decision being handed down, the parties settled seperately. So there was no legal ruling on the nature of the contract or doping or otherwise, there was an entirely seperate deal between SCA/tailwind.
    Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/
  • andrewjoseph
    andrewjoseph Posts: 2,165
    Sorry Jim, I edited my post but you commented on the first bit.
    --
    Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails
  • ms_tree
    ms_tree Posts: 1,405
    This is all getting SO tedious. I wish he would just 'fess up and get it over with.
    'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
    Neil Gaiman