McQuaid questions delay in Armstrong evidence

Trev The Rev

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19749763

symo

Wait for LA fanboys to see this as proof of the witch hunt.

Good news for Kimmage though, it delays the time UCI have with the evidence to try and dismiss it during that case.

thomthom

"A source close to the case told Cyclingnews Wednesday that "information kept coming in, hence, the delay in getting the dossier to the UCI." "

Anonymous

But if you see the other "LA stripped" thread apparently its because it was in 'court' format not for 'you are a corrupt bunch of inept fools so we are going to spell it you for you in plain english' format

Limburger

coriordan wrote:

But if you see the other "LA stripped" thread apparently its because it was in 'court' format not for 'you are a corrupt bunch of inept fools so we are going to spell it you for you in plain english' format

Or 'We know exactly what kind of conniving, corrupt bar-stewards you are so we are making triple sure that our wording is copper-bottomed, lead-lined, cast iron and bombproof that no amount of lawyering, miss-representation or wilful miss-interpretation can be employed to dismiss our evidence as a basis for letting your pal Lance off and dragging this whole thing to CAS in (whatever year Lance tells you to/whenever Pats' time is up). "

It's what I would do.

meggiedude

UCI questioning delays???
Three words - Contador, Pot, Kettle.

Trev The Rev

meggiedude wrote:

UCI questioning delays???
Three words - Contador, Pot, Kettle.

Now Kimmage has a fighting fund we might find McQuaid wanting to delay some actions.

Richrd2205

Limburger wrote:

coriordan wrote:

But if you see the other "LA stripped" thread apparently its because it was in 'court' format not for 'you are a corrupt bunch of inept fools so we are going to spell it you for you in plain english' format

Or 'We know exactly what kind of conniving, corrupt bar-stewards you are so we are making triple sure that our wording is copper-bottomed, lead-lined, cast iron and bombproof that no amount of lawyering, miss-representation or wilful miss-interpretation can be employed to dismiss our evidence as a basis for letting your pal Lance off and dragging this whole thing to CAS in (whatever year Lance tells you to/whenever Pats' time is up). "

It's what I would do.

Would an alloy of copper, lead and iron actually be bombproof?

Limburger

^

Only has to be good enough to freeze the UCI/Lance lawyers Star Wars stylee!
Failing that the USADA can weigh it all in a pay to have Johnnie Cochran resurrected... or just bludgeon Fat Pat and bury him in a shallow grave (though obviously not that shallow)

RichN95.

ThomThom wrote:

"A source close to the case told Cyclingnews Wednesday that "information kept coming in, hence, the delay in getting the dossier to the UCI." "

Now this is the bit I don't understand.
The evidence at the time of the ruling is the evidence. The ruling has to hold up on the basis on the evidence that was used to make it at the time - not extra stuff added after the fact.
Now, I'm sure they had plenty evidence at the time, but stuff like this makes me think less of USADA and wonder whether there may be some other agendas at work.

milton50

RichN95 wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

"A source close to the case told Cyclingnews Wednesday that "information kept coming in, hence, the delay in getting the dossier to the UCI." "

Now this is the bit I don't understand.
The evidence at the time of the ruling is the evidence. The ruling has to hold up on the basis on the evidence that was used to make it at the time - not extra stuff added after the fact.
Now, I'm sure they had plenty evidence at the time, but stuff like this makes me think less of USADA and wonder whether there may be some other agendas at work.

I'm fine with whatever is the permitted procedure in a case like this. If USADA are allowed to collect more evidence and ensure their case is water-tight then let them carry on.

Mikey23

There is so much misinformation flying around at the moment it will be nice to get some facts.

TMR

RichN95 wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

"A source close to the case told Cyclingnews Wednesday that "information kept coming in, hence, the delay in getting the dossier to the UCI." "

Now this is the bit I don't understand.
The evidence at the time of the ruling is the evidence. The ruling has to hold up on the basis on the evidence that was used to make it at the time - not extra stuff added after the fact.

It makes no difference. Evidence can always be presented after the fact; if you think about it, it's the very reason why people who have been convicted of an offence can appeal. I suspect in this case, people who have been keeping information to themselves for years have thought 'Bugger this' and started talking.

I'd think less of the USADA if they didn't present all new evidence. Just remember, if they are being truly impartial, that this new information may well be to Lance's benefit. We won't know until we can read it though, obviously.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

"A source close to the case told Cyclingnews Wednesday that "information kept coming in, hence, the delay in getting the dossier to the UCI." "

Now this is the bit I don't understand.
The evidence at the time of the ruling is the evidence. The ruling has to hold up on the basis on the evidence that was used to make it at the time - not extra stuff added after the fact.
Now, I'm sure they had plenty evidence at the time, but stuff like this makes me think less of USADA and wonder whether there may be some other agendas at work.

Well if he'd gone to arbitration they'd have been able to pull more evidence in even during the arbitration.

As Armstrong didn't contest the charges the only reason I can see for the UCI not to immediately verify the sanctions is procedural (perhaps the process demands the letter of reasoning before they can act - I don't know). I assumed the letter of reasoning thing is more of a formal courtesy than something a sporting body is required to address before deciding whether to sanction an athlete, which is how the UCI are treating it.

Essentially the UCI have demanded an explanation from USADA, and refuse to act until it arrives. I see no reason why that explanation shouldn't contain the most up to date information available.

andy_wrx

Am I alone in thinking that the BBC's reporting of this whole affair has been slanted towards Lance and against the UCI ?

DNQ

The Mad Rapper wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

"A source close to the case told Cyclingnews Wednesday that "information kept coming in, hence, the delay in getting the dossier to the UCI." "

Now this is the bit I don't understand.
The evidence at the time of the ruling is the evidence. The ruling has to hold up on the basis on the evidence that was used to make it at the time - not extra stuff added after the fact.

It makes no difference. Evidence can always be presented after the fact; if you think about it, it's the very reason why people who have been convicted of an offence can appeal. I suspect in this case, people who have been keeping information to themselves for years have thought 'Bugger this' and started talking.

I'd think less of the USADA if they didn't present all new evidence. Just remember, if they are being truly impartial, that this new information may well be to Lance's benefit. We won't know until we can read it though, obviously.

They are not supposed to be presenting new evidence!
They are supposed to be giving their "Reasoned Decision" for their judgement of the 24 August as required by WADC Article 8.3. Nothing more, nothing less!
Failure to do that will open a whole new can of worms.

iainf72

Three Armstrong teammates have said in affidavits for USADA that LA said he could get rid of positive test or find a way around doping laws

via Mr Walsh

iainf72

More from Walsh

When UCI receive USADA's report and read that rmstrong has questioned their integrity, will they decide to sue him, as they have Kimmage?

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

Three Armstrong teammates have said in affidavits for USADA that LA said he could get rid of positive test or find a way around doping laws

Armstrong also said he didn't take drugs. He told teammates what he thought they needed to hear. Maybe it was true maybe it wasn't. He's not really a reliable source to be honest.

iainf72

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Three Armstrong teammates have said in affidavits for USADA that LA said he could get rid of positive test or find a way around doping laws

Armstrong also said he didn't take drugs. He told teammates what he thought they needed to hear. Maybe it was true maybe it wasn't. He's not really a reliable source to be honest.

Indeed. In the context of the Kimmage suit, it's important though. If LA told multiple people and PK just replayed this, they need to have a problem with LA rather than PK.

andy_wrx

So Armstrong told the truth when he said he didn't dope, and was lying to his team-mates when he said he did ?
- Interesting idea !

But we have corroborating evidence like the presence of EPO in his fridge as recounted by Hamilton, and the steroid in the bathroom cabinet as recounted by Mike Anderson
- unless these were to give credence to his lies to his team-mates...

Hmm !

Mikey23

everybody is lying or has some personal grudge against him. sounds paranoid to me ...

Nick Fitt

Its clear he did dope to me and just about everyone. What is so laughably sad is the damage that the sports governors are doing to the sport trying to dodge bullets. My guess is the UCI are using Sep Blatter as a consultant.