USADA files doping charges against Lance
Comments
-
andyp wrote:dennisn wrote:Whatever LA and his team are doing is all about how the laws read and if they can find a weakness or exploit some area of the charges and the law says they can. Well, it just might work. It's not about what you and I will buy. It's about using the laws to your advantage. USADA must dot all the i's and cross all the t's. If they don't then appeals are sure to follow(if there is such a thing as appealing the outcome).
I agree. But, from what we've seen so far, USADA are very, very aware of this and have ensured that they've followed the stated procedures to the letter. They've clearly gone through the expected scenarios too, and worked out what their strategy should be in each instance.
I'm sure that in their minds they have worked it all out. I'm also sure that LA's lawyers
feel the same way. Lances lawyers do have one advantage. If(big if) USADA does forget to dot that "i" or cross that "t" they will pounch and pounch hard.0 -
"pounch"?0
-
0
-
rdt wrote:
Most embarrassing. My bad. :oops:0 -
How funny is it that the UCI were all "we know nothing about it blah blah blah" now all of a sudden their keen to get there hands on the documents , maybe someone has tipped them off that there are things in those files they might want to know about
Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
once again the UCI put their foot in it and again try to do a special case for LA. Surely they can see it is better for them to sit this one out, they could even blame it all on Hein and the old guard if they wanted.
Instead they are still being seen to be LA puppet0 -
I like the WADA truth and reconciliation idea ..if that is offered Lance should go for that...0
-
richard wants a baum wrote:How funny is it that the UCI were all "we know nothing about it blah blah blah" now all of a sudden their keen to get there hands on the documents , maybe someone has tipped them off that there are things in those files they might want to know about
Well, lets hope the UCI get the request thrown back in their face rapidly. They shouldn't be interfering, and anyone following this knows why they are, or certainly knows they have a vested interest in doing so. (Of course, the public at large won't know this, so hence they can do it without too many image troubles).
We assume there's evidence implicating the UCI, from turning a blind eye to maybe cover-ups... if any of that's the case, then surely there's no way on earth the UCI will be granted control of the case/evidence.0 -
They've had it thrown back already, thats why its come out into the open.
They requested it on the 13'th, USADA wrote them a 26 page response a week or so ago saying no.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
iainf72 wrote:
Am I reading this right that Pat the head of the UCI is saying Ferrari isn't banned :shock: Pure madness0 -
Surely it's not nothing to do with the UCI right?
At least, USADA can do whatever they like regardless of what the UCI do?0 -
Pat now claiming jurisdiction because the UCI uncovered the evidence in this case before the USADA.
...or some other total BS in order to desperately put the lid on this can of worms0 -
What are the chance's that Armstrong made a call to Patty and said if you don't put this down I'm going to bring you all down with me?Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0
-
so UCI will not recognise USADA's sanction. LA stays a 7 time Tour De France winner as ASO will not scrub those results without UCI permission..and likely prefer it to the mockery it makes of their event with other convicted dopers inheriting wins e.g. big Jan. This could be the end of this case now. USADA will persist. UCI will not recognise it. It's over. LA will not go to arbitration in my opinion0
-
As long as USADA gets to continue its process it should end well. The UCI can bury its head in the sand, but it will then find WADA knocking at CAS's door and a whole bunch of other undesirable consequences.0
-
Dave_1 wrote:so UCI will not recognise USADA's sanction. LA stays a 7 time Tour De France winner as ASO will not scrub those results without UCI permission..and likely prefer it to the mockery it makes of their event with other convicted dopers inheriting wins e.g. big Jan. This could be the end of this case now. USADA will persist. UCI will not recognise it. It's over. LA will not go to arbitration in my opinion
To an extent, it doesn't matter what the UCI think - Armstrong is retired from cycling; the International Triathlon Union will respect a USADA ban; in any case, the UCI have previously confirmed USADA's jurisdiction.The UCI can bury its head in the sand, but it will then find WADA knocking at CAS's door and a whole bunch of other undesirable consequences.
Precisely.
Stripping him of those wins would always have been nonsensical given that many of the runners-up were on the hot sauce; better to leave the results in place and starred. Did anyone (including Schleck) think that giving Schleck the 2010 TdF win was anything other than farcical?
Andy0 -
So, the UCI want to take over case.
If they did, they would look at it, if it required further action, they'd refer it to the USADA. If they didn't, USADA would go to CAS.
So WTF do they think they're achieving here?
I suspect Hein and Pat know that Lance, at some point, will throw them under the bus. It's his way out, "boo hoo, how can you punish me when the sports governing body allowed me to do it."
WADA have USADA's back, the IOC have to be supportive of WADA.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:So, the UCI want to take over case.
If they did, they would look at it, if it required further action, they'd refer it to the USADA. If they didn't, USADA would go to CAS.
So WTF do they think they're achieving here?
I suspect Hein and Pat know that Lance, at some point, will throw them under the bus. It's his way out, "boo hoo, how can you punish me when the sports governing body allowed me to do it."
WADA have USADA's back, the IOC have to be supportive of WADA.
Likely USADA will have its way, retain jurisdiction and ban Armstong who won't contest it, but the UCI will not recognise it and will not carry it out, nor will ASO erase the wins so LA keeps his 7 wins and Bruyneel will continue in the sport.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:
Likely USADA will have its way, retain jurisdiction and ban Armstong who won't contest it, but the UCI will not recognise it and will not carry it out, nor will ASO erase the wins so LA keeps his 7 wins and Bruyneel will continue in the sport.
The UCI will have no choice in the matter. Cycling is signed up to the WADA code and if they ignored ruling by an ADA they would be in violation of the code.
I think we need to separate out the UCI from Pat and Hein here. These guys are going to be put in a very awkward position soon.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dave_1 wrote:
Likely USADA will have its way, retain jurisdiction and ban Armstong who won't contest it, but the UCI will not recognise it and will not carry it out, nor will ASO erase the wins so LA keeps his 7 wins and Bruyneel will continue in the sport.
The UCI will have no choice in the matter. Cycling is signed up to the WADA code and if they ignored ruling by an ADA they would be in violation of the code.
I think we need to separate out the UCI from Pat and Hein here. These guys are going to be put in a very awkward position soon.
if the UCI refuse to recognise the jurisdiction of USADA then likely they will not be willing to carry out the banning so USADA will take UCI to CAS where there is a chance CAS rules in UCI's favour.0 -
ratherbeintobago wrote:Stripping him of those wins would always have been nonsensical given that many of the runners-up were on the hot sauce; better to leave the results in place and starred. Did anyone (including Schleck) think that giving Schleck the 2010 TdF win was anything other than farcical?
I don't really think that putting a "star" next to someones name means anything. Who will see it and even if someone does see it, who will care? The thing is, the vast majority of the human race simply doesn't care what happens. Why would they?
I do like the nonsensical and farcial comments though. Just not in the way you would think. It's becoming a bit funny to read this forum what with all the WADA, CAS, UCI,
USADA, IOC, ASO, etc.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:so UCI will not recognise USADA's sanction. LA stays a 7 time Tour De France winner as ASO will not scrub those results without UCI permission..and likely prefer it to the mockery it makes of their event with other convicted dopers inheriting wins e.g. big Jan. This could be the end of this case now. USADA will persist. UCI will not recognise it. It's over. LA will not go to arbitration in my opinion
USADA letter to UCI rebutting their claim to "take over" the investigation contains this sentence:
"By our count, of the twenty-one (21) podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005 only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation."
So yes, what is the point of stripping LA of the TdF wins, who would they give them to?0 -
Best theory around the UCI actions is they're applying pressure on the riders who have spoken. Basically saying they will ban anyone who talks.
Dennis, can I suggest you go over to cycling news forum. You'll discover how sedate we are here.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
DNQ wrote:Dave_1 wrote:so UCI will not recognise USADA's sanction. LA stays a 7 time Tour De France winner as ASO will not scrub those results without UCI permission..and likely prefer it to the mockery it makes of their event with other convicted dopers inheriting wins e.g. big Jan. This could be the end of this case now. USADA will persist. UCI will not recognise it. It's over. LA will not go to arbitration in my opinion
USADA letter to UCI rebutting their claim to "take over" the investigation contains this sentence:
"By our count, of the twenty-one (21) podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005 only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation."
So yes, what is the point of stripping LA of the TdF wins, who would they give them to?
as they did with Riis I don't see the point in awarding the title to anyone else and with the amount of time that went on I doubt the ASO will do anything either0 -
sherer wrote:DNQ wrote:Dave_1 wrote:so UCI will not recognise USADA's sanction. LA stays a 7 time Tour De France winner as ASO will not scrub those results without UCI permission..and likely prefer it to the mockery it makes of their event with other convicted dopers inheriting wins e.g. big Jan. This could be the end of this case now. USADA will persist. UCI will not recognise it. It's over. LA will not go to arbitration in my opinion
USADA letter to UCI rebutting their claim to "take over" the investigation contains this sentence:
"By our count, of the twenty-one (21) podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005 only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation."
So yes, what is the point of stripping LA of the TdF wins, who would they give them to?
as they did with Riis I don't see the point in awarding the title to anyone else and with the amount of time that went on I doubt the ASO will do anything either
yes, for sure..I will bet the UCI will give lengthy career ending bans to the 5 or 6 unknown people who have cooperated with USADA. UCI believes USADA will go ahead with banning Armstrong and co, and then that frees UCI to go to CAS and try to have USADA's verdict struck down. The whole thing ends then as WADA can't appeal again to CAS as it's given it's verdict on ADAs jurisdiction already and the UCI then takes no more action against LA and let's the case die.0 -
Reading through the UCI letter a couple of things are very apparent -
1) its still only speculation as to who the witnesses (riders) who gave statements are - Is it possible that all theyre after is the witness list, so LA and his guys can do their usual tricks.??
2) WTF did the UCI not do a damn thing, apart from a few insulting emails(?!?!), when Landis came clean in 2010? Its quite obvious they did no investigations or look into the claims at all, and yet now they want to take over the investigation.?!
As stated earlier just sounds like theyre trying to help out a mate....dont knock on death\'s door.....
Ring the bell and leg it...that really pi**es him off....0 -
bigdawg wrote:Reading through the UCI letter a couple of things are very apparent -
1) its still only speculation as to who the witnesses (riders) who gave statements are - Is it possible that all theyre after is the witness list, so LA and his guys can do their usual tricks.??
2) WTF did the UCI not do a damn thing, apart from a few insulting emails(?!?!), when Landis came clean in 2010? Its quite obvious they did no investigations or look into the claims at all, and yet now they want to take over the investigation.?!
As stated earlier just sounds like theyre trying to help out a mate....
According to the UCI letter when the Landis e-mail came out they asked the national associations to investigate, although I don't remember any public comments from them at the time. Now they have found something they don't like they are askig to take over the case.
It's just another example of the UCI making themselves look like fools and the best thing to come out of this case would be for a new clean governing body to take their place0
