USADA v UCI

KentPuncheur
KentPuncheur Posts: 246
edited August 2012 in Pro race
I don't want to start another thread on the exhausted topic of did he, didn't he...I always knew he doped, I'll never believe these allegations etc etc so please let's refrain from that tosh and save it for the other threads.

I am a little confused still, so can someone please enlighten me. How can the USADA ban Lance for life and strip his titles (as they have just indicated they will do), I thought the UCI were the ranking governing body and only they could do so?
2011 Trek Madone 3.1c
2012 Ribble 7005 Winter Trainer

Dolor transit, gloria aeterna est.

Comments

  • luckao
    luckao Posts: 632
    My understanding is that they entrust WADA with these matters, who then entrusted USADA with this matter.
  • Luckao wrote:
    My understanding is that they entrust WADA with these matters, who then entrusted USADA with this matter.

    So UCI do not get to see the evidence and also rule on the matter?

    Presumably the fact that the USADA (and by association WADA) have stripped and banned him the evidence must be out there, they wouldn't be able to do so without presenting the evidence to at least a third party or governing body, no?
    2011 Trek Madone 3.1c
    2012 Ribble 7005 Winter Trainer

    Dolor transit, gloria aeterna est.
  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    UCI statment here. Basically says it will think about it! As far as i know if UCI don't comply with USADA/WADA then they can be ostracised from world sport, e.g Olympics etc.
    http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1
  • luckao
    luckao Posts: 632
    I don't think so. Then again, you'd have to ask somebody who knows a lot more than I do. For whatever reason, I'm under the assumption that WADA isn't obliged to answer to any organisation, not if they've signed up to its anti-doping code.
  • oneof1982 wrote:
    UCI statment here. Basically says it will think about it! As far as i know if UCI don't comply with USADA/WADA then they can be ostracised from world sport, e.g Olympics etc.
    http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1

    So if my basic understanding is correct, it has played something like this:

    USADA has collected some evidence which they beleive is strong enough to ban LA and strip him of the 7 titles. For whatever reason (let's leave it for now!!!...) LA has not contested the ruling and therefore is guilty by default. WADA recognise USADA and therefore automatically uphold the decision. The UCI adopt the WADA code (for sporting credibility) and will no doubt have to uphold the decision if they are to retain that credibility.

    So all in all, LA has been found guilty through evidence that will now not be presented in court and therefore may be kept from the public domain (that could work for or against him depending on his guilt ... leave it...!!!), and the UCI will have to go along with it all to avoid being ostracised. Score one for transparancy!
    2011 Trek Madone 3.1c
    2012 Ribble 7005 Winter Trainer

    Dolor transit, gloria aeterna est.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    oneof1982 wrote:
    UCI statment here. Basically says it will think about it! As far as i know if UCI don't comply with USADA/WADA then they can be ostracised from world sport, e.g Olympics etc.
    http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1

    So if my basic understanding is correct, it has played something like this:

    USADA has collected some evidence which they beleive is strong enough to ban LA and strip him of the 7 titles. For whatever reason (let's leave it for now!!!...) LA has not contested the ruling and therefore is guilty by default. WADA recognise USADA and therefore automatically uphold the decision. The UCI adopt the WADA code (for sportign credibility) and will no doubt have to uphold the decision if they are to retain that sporting credibility.

    So all in all, LA has been found guilty through evidence that will now not be presneted in court and therefore may be kept from the public domain (that could work well or against him depending on his guilt ... leave it...!!!), and the UCI will have to go along with it all to avoid being ostracised. Score one for transparancy!
    I think it's more of a case of USADA recognising WADA. US Cycling grant the licence - USADA do the testing -WADA enforce subsequent bans/suspensions through it's other signed up sporting bodies. And since UCI are themselves signed up to WADA's WADC,they must as a governing sporting body - nullify past results. This for Lance means 7 tours + other victories.

    It technically means that if for example UKAD tested Jessia Ennis positive, British Athletics would have to suspend her licence,the world federations would have to nullify her results and she wouldn't be able to marry an American and cycle for USA either.
  • I think it's more of a case of USADA recognising WADA. US Cycling grant the licence - USADA do the testing -WADA enforce subsequent bans/suspensions through it's other signed up sporting bodies. And since UCI are themselves signed up to WADA's WADC,they must as a governing sporting body - nullify past results. This for Lance means 7 tours + other victories.

    It technically means that if for example UKAD tested Jessia Ennis positive, British Athletics would have to suspend her licence,the world federations would have to nullify her results and she wouldn't be able to marry an American and cycle for USA either.

    Ah right that clears up the inter-relationship between the authorities...thanks.

    Would be nice to hear what the evidence is aside from some finger pointing...I trust it must be pretty compelling to have stripped him...
    2011 Trek Madone 3.1c
    2012 Ribble 7005 Winter Trainer

    Dolor transit, gloria aeterna est.
  • oneof1982 wrote:
    UCI statment here. Basically says it will think about it! As far as i know if UCI don't comply with USADA/WADA then they can be ostracised from world sport, e.g Olympics etc.
    http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1

    So if my basic understanding is correct, it has played something like this:

    USADA has collected some evidence which they beleive is strong enough to ban LA and strip him of the 7 titles. For whatever reason (let's leave it for now!!!...) LA has not contested the ruling and therefore is guilty by default. WADA recognise USADA and therefore automatically uphold the decision. The UCI adopt the WADA code (for sporting credibility) and will no doubt have to uphold the decision if they are to retain that credibility.

    So all in all, LA has been found guilty through evidence that will now not be presented in court and therefore may be kept from the public domain (that could work for or against him depending on his guilt ... leave it...!!!), and the UCI will have to go along with it all to avoid being ostracised. Score one for transparancy!
    I don't know about the public domain thing. Most of it is likely to come out in Bruyneel's hearing (if he doesn't suddenly decide he'd rather just slink off), and USADA have indicated that they'll probably publish the evidence in any case.

    But to complain about transparency is the wrong approach. Armstrong has chosen this course of action himself. By opting not to contest the charges, he's effectively pleaded guilty. If the full story doesn't come out (something I suspect he'd be very happy about), it's through his own choice. Pleading guilty in court doesn't give you the right to complain that the evidence wasn't heard in court, and nor should Armstrong's decision.
    N00b commuter with delusions of competence

    FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?
  • oneof1982
    oneof1982 Posts: 703
    I'm sure I heard Travis T. Tygart (I kid you not) C Ex of USADA say on 5live that the evidence would be put in the public domain. I suspect that is what UCI will be pushing for (until they see it!)
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,224
    KentPuncheur - despite your valid points, it's the bike you ride that I like best.
    Just about sums it all up...
  • ReesA
    ReesA Posts: 62
    http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12712 ... ipped.aspx

    VN = velonation
    TT = Travis Tygart

    VN: There was reportedly a lot of evidence in the case, there was witness testimony and presumably more…do you expect any of those details to emerge?

    TT: Yes, absolutely…at the right time. Obviously there are other cases that are alleged to be involved in the conspiracy. Their cases are still proceeding, so it will be in due course.

    VN: So there is no impediment to USADA releasing the evidence?

    TT: No, no.
  • I think it's more of a case of USADA recognising WADA. US Cycling grant the licence - USADA do the testing -WADA enforce subsequent bans/suspensions through it's other signed up sporting bodies. And since UCI are themselves signed up to WADA's WADC,they must as a governing sporting body - nullify past results. This for Lance means 7 tours + other victories.

    It technically means that if for example UKAD tested Jessia Ennis positive, British Athletics would have to suspend her licence,the world federations would have to nullify her results and she wouldn't be able to marry an American and cycle for USA either.

    That's how I understand it, with a wrinkle: the UCI can ignore WADA, BUT if the UCI refuse to adopt the USADA/WADA position, its (the UCI's) sports (eg track cycling) can be booted from WADA events (eg the Olys).

    However... (1) didn't the UCI either challenge, or support Armstrong's challenge in the Texas courts to the USADA having jurisdiction to bring these charges; and (2) isn't there a Statute of Limitations that says how far back results can be stripped?

    LA has always had an army of lawyers behind him. I can't help but wonder whether the tactical endgame has yet to start.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • oneof1982 wrote:
    UCI statment here. Basically says it will think about it! As far as i know if UCI don't comply with USADA/WADA then they can be ostracised from world sport, e.g Olympics etc.
    http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... LangId%3D1

    So if my basic understanding is correct, it has played something like this:

    USADA has collected some evidence which they beleive is strong enough to ban LA and strip him of the 7 titles. For whatever reason (let's leave it for now!!!...) LA has not contested the ruling and therefore is guilty by default. WADA recognise USADA and therefore automatically uphold the decision. The UCI adopt the WADA code (for sporting credibility) and will no doubt have to uphold the decision if they are to retain that credibility.

    So all in all, LA has been found guilty through evidence that will now not be presented in court and therefore may be kept from the public domain (that could work for or against him depending on his guilt ... leave it...!!!), and the UCI will have to go along with it all to avoid being ostracised. Score one for transparancy!
    I don't know about the public domain thing. Most of it is likely to come out in Bruyneel's hearing (if he doesn't suddenly decide he'd rather just slink off), and USADA have indicated that they'll probably publish the evidence in any case.

    But to complain about transparency is the wrong approach. Armstrong has chosen this course of action himself. By opting not to contest the charges, he's effectively pleaded guilty. If the full story doesn't come out (something I suspect he'd be very happy about), it's through his own choice. Pleading guilty in court doesn't give you the right to complain that the evidence wasn't heard in court, and nor should Armstrong's decision.

    I'm not complaining about the transparency issue for LA's sake, far from it. I'm not a LA fan or truth denier, I just want the transparency for the fans so that we can be told exactly what happened and move on with the sport we all love!
    2011 Trek Madone 3.1c
    2012 Ribble 7005 Winter Trainer

    Dolor transit, gloria aeterna est.
  • OCDuPalais wrote:
    KentPuncheur - despite your valid points, it's the bike you ride that I like best.
    Just about sums it all up...

    Because I bought the bike due to LA as I'm such a fan boy?!!
    No, I'm not a LA fan by any stretch of the imagination. I respect him for getting through his health issues, as much as I respect every cancer survivor. But if he's done wrong then he should be punished. I want the evidence to be transparent so the extent of his guilt can be seen by all so we can then move on.
    Oh and I bought the bike as 1) I'm a lanky git and it was the only frame in my lbs that fitted me and 2) it had a big fat discount!
    2011 Trek Madone 3.1c
    2012 Ribble 7005 Winter Trainer

    Dolor transit, gloria aeterna est.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    Greg66 wrote:
    I think it's more of a case of USADA recognising WADA. US Cycling grant the licence - USADA do the testing -WADA enforce subsequent bans/suspensions through it's other signed up sporting bodies. And since UCI are themselves signed up to WADA's WADC,they must as a governing sporting body - nullify past results. This for Lance means 7 tours + other victories.

    It technically means that if for example UKAD tested Jessia Ennis positive, British Athletics would have to suspend her licence,the world federations would have to nullify her results and she wouldn't be able to marry an American and cycle for USA either.

    That's how I understand it, with a wrinkle: the UCI can ignore WADA, BUT if the UCI refuse to adopt the USADA/WADA position, its (the UCI's) sports (eg track cycling) can be booted from WADA events (eg the Olys).

    However... (1) didn't the UCI either challenge, or support Armstrong's challenge in the Texas courts to the USADA having jurisdiction to bring these charges; and (2) isn't there a Statute of Limitations that says how far back results can be stripped?

    LA has always had an army of lawyers behind him. I can't help but wonder whether the tactical endgame has yet to start.
    Haven't heard the "wrinkle" as you put it before,it makes the whole thing a bit more interesting when you consider (1) I do recall something along the lines of (2) but I have no source.

    I'm thinking the same - it's not over yet, probably just beginning.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,878
    Greg66 wrote:
    I think it's more of a case of USADA recognising WADA. US Cycling grant the licence - USADA do the testing -WADA enforce subsequent bans/suspensions through it's other signed up sporting bodies. And since UCI are themselves signed up to WADA's WADC,they must as a governing sporting body - nullify past results. This for Lance means 7 tours + other victories.

    It technically means that if for example UKAD tested Jessia Ennis positive, British Athletics would have to suspend her licence,the world federations would have to nullify her results and she wouldn't be able to marry an American and cycle for USA either.

    That's how I understand it, with a wrinkle: the UCI can ignore WADA, BUT if the UCI refuse to adopt the USADA/WADA position, its (the UCI's) sports (eg track cycling) can be booted from WADA events (eg the Olys).

    However... (1) didn't the UCI either challenge, or support Armstrong's challenge in the Texas courts to the USADA having jurisdiction to bring these charges; and (2) isn't there a Statute of Limitations that says how far back results can be stripped?

    LA has always had an army of lawyers behind him. I can't help but wonder whether the tactical endgame has yet to start.

    Excellent piece by the Inner Ring - particularly the bit on the reallocation of TDF wins

    http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armstron ... more-10570
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265

    Excellent piece by the Inner Ring - particularly the bit on the reallocation of TDF wins

    http://inrng.com/2012/08/lance-armstron ... more-10570
    Ahh nice :) Thanks muchly
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,224
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    KentPuncheur - despite your valid points, it's the bike you ride that I like best.
    Just about sums it all up...

    Because I bought the bike due to LA as I'm such a fan boy?!!
    No, I'm not a LA fan by any stretch of the imagination.

    No no - not at all.
    I just got to the end of your post and thought 'hello. All this inquisition about LA, and we're all all riding his (associated) bikes with his associated brands (Trek, Nike, Twailwind Sports, Livestrong, etc)' ... We're all either wittingly or unwittingly caught up in this... I'm just passionate about cycling, but I've probably been complicit somewhere along the line (my all time fav rider is Ullrich, FFS!)
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    OCDuPalais wrote:
    All this inquisition about LA, and we're all all riding his (associated) bikes with his associated brands (Trek, Nike, Twailwind Sports, Livestrong, etc)' ... We're all either wittingly or unwittingly caught up in this...
    Right enough, I've just realised I'll now have to go outside and burn the Nike trainers I got because they were ridiculously cheap in the sale :roll:
  • alihisgreat
    alihisgreat Posts: 3,872
    I don't want to start another thread on the exhausted topic of did he, didn't he...I always knew he doped, I'll never believe these allegations etc etc so please let's refrain from that tosh and save it for the other threads.

    I am a little confused still, so can someone please enlighten me. How can the USADA ban Lance for life and strip his titles (as they have just indicated they will do), I thought the UCI were the ranking governing body and only they could do so?

    As a racer you sign up to a system of anti-doping to get your license.. I'm not sure of the formal structure.. but this means that USADA do have the power and right to do that because of the relationship between them and WADA.. and WADA and the UCI.
  • izza
    izza Posts: 1,561
    I don't want to start another thread on the exhausted topic of did he, didn't he...I always knew he doped, I'll never believe these allegations etc etc so please let's refrain from that tosh and save it for the other threads.

    I am a little confused still, so can someone please enlighten me. How can the USADA ban Lance for life and strip his titles (as they have just indicated they will do), I thought the UCI were the ranking governing body and only they could do so?

    As a racer you sign up to a system of anti-doping to get your license.. I'm not sure of the formal structure.. but this means that USADA do have the power and right to do that because of the relationship between them and WADA.. and WADA and the UCI.

    I'm new to much of the organisational politics here but does the UCI make him winner of TdF or ASO with ratification and points/rankings adjusted by UCI?

    Could we end up in a position that ASO says "he won the race we organised" but UCI says "we don't recognise him as the winner" and then history books left in a vague position whilst ASO and UCI have never ending stand off?
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    If UCI don't accept the findings, this will likely result in a CAS hearing, effectively with USADA and WADA on one side and the UCI on the other. Evidence is likely to focus on Verbruggen's and McQuaid's complicity in the cover-up of Armstrong's positive tests in 1991, the Vrijman 'whitewash' of the AFLD retesting/ L'equipe EPO positives from 1999 and Armstrong's 'anti-doping' donations. Verbruggen has aspirations at the IOC - it won't be much cop if the UCI are tossed-out of IOC for systemic and complicit failure to support the WADA code.
    At that time, UCI were making a concerted 'powerplay' for the global TV rights for cycling and Pharmstrong was their posterboy. Thankfully ASO saw the scam for what it was - I don't expect ASO to side with UCI either given their history. Armstrong / Thom Weisel etc also made an play to take over the ASO/TdF a few years go, which I expect doesn't endear him to the French.
    It'll take a while to play-out but true cycling fans have been sick of this charade since 1999, so we'll happily wait another 13 years for it to resolve itself, by which time most fanboi worshippers have taken their celebrity-cult worship elsewhere.
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • mfin
    mfin Posts: 6,729
    What's a cinema chain doing running international cycling anyway? cmon, its really weird.
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Monty Dog wrote:
    If UCI don't accept the findings, this will likely result in a CAS hearing, effectively with USADA and WADA on one side and the UCI on the other. Evidence is likely to focus on Verbruggen's and McQuaid's complicity in the cover-up of Armstrong's positive tests in 1991, the Vrijman 'whitewash' of the AFLD retesting/ L'equipe EPO positives from 1999 and Armstrong's 'anti-doping' donations. Verbruggen has aspirations at the IOC - it won't be much cop if the UCI are tossed-out of IOC for systemic and complicit failure to support the WADA code.
    At that time, UCI were making a concerted 'powerplay' for the global TV rights for cycling and Pharmstrong was their posterboy. Thankfully ASO saw the scam for what it was - I don't expect ASO to side with UCI either given their history. Armstrong / Thom Weisel etc also made an play to take over the ASO/TdF a few years go, which I expect doesn't endear him to the French.
    It'll take a while to play-out but true cycling fans have been sick of this charade since 1999, so we'll happily wait another 13 years for it to resolve itself, by which time most fanboi worshippers have taken their celebrity-cult worship elsewhere.

    There wasn't enough evidence in 1999-2000 so no need for your "true cycling fans" swipe. Show some respect. Not everyone was an immediate cycnic for good reason.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,511
    I can't see UCI appealing USADA's decision to CAS. Instead, they will sit on it for a while and when everyone has lost interest they will quietly accept USADA's decision.