Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:04 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:08 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:30 pm
Posts: 1255
Location: Desk
Pyro Tim wrote:
USADA only have jurisdiction against US riders and teams....


That is not correct. They have sanctioned Dr Ferrari who never had a USAC licence as a rider or a Team owner, or Doctor. Similar that CONI (Italian authority) found evidence and created sanctions in the Valverde case, which was pretty much dropped by RFEC after Operacion Puerto.

To recap - If an Anti-Drugs Authority has evidence that a rider in a sport has broken the rules, they can act on it and propose a suspension on behalf of WADA. In such sporting cases, the Athlete can protest against the ADA that brings the charges, if they don't like it or argue successfully, they can appeal to CAS.

In this particular case, USADA claimed evidence against Armstrong that he decided not to contest. Once that was the case, a decision was reached and sanctions were created. Thus, after not contesting the USADA information, he had no recourse to the UCI or the CAS. Hence where we are today. The UCI have upheld at least part of the decision (All tour titles) but will have a meeting in regard to other results, and if there will be changes in 'the winners'.

The UCI has also stated that they feel WADA should contest the charges due to the fact they feel that the SOL is still valid, and this is the case with WADA rules. USADA argue that the SOL is not valid, as they have proven cases that extend beyond the SOL due to fraud.

It is now to WADA to determine if their rules are appropriate, and cover the extended SOL, which they apparently have previously upheld in the USADA v Hellebuyck case.

There is a pissload of points still to be argued by the relevant authorities, but this is where we are at present - the Italian case surrounding Dr. Ferrari appears to contain even more names, so we aren't out of the rough just yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:24 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
DA-EVO wrote:
Pyro Tim wrote:
USADA only have jurisdiction against US riders and teams....


That is not correct. They have sanctioned Dr Ferrari who never had a USAC licence as a rider or a Team owner, or Doctor. Similar that CONI (Italian authority) found evidence and created sanctions in the Valverde case, which was pretty much dropped by RFEC after Operacion Puerto.

To recap - If an Anti-Drugs Authority has evidence that a rider in a sport has broken the rules, they can act on it and propose a suspension on behalf of WADA. In such sporting cases, the Athlete can protest against the ADA that brings the charges, if they don't like it or argue successfully, they can appeal to CAS.

In this particular case, USADA claimed evidence against Armstrong that he decided not to contest. Once that was the case, a decision was reached and sanctions were created. Thus, after not contesting the USADA information, he had no recourse to the UCI or the CAS. Hence where we are today. The UCI have upheld at least part of the decision (All tour titles) but will have a meeting in regard to other results, and if there will be changes in 'the winners'.

The UCI has also stated that they feel WADA should contest the charges due to the fact they feel that the SOL is still valid, and this is the case with WADA rules. USADA argue that the SOL is not valid, as they have proven cases that extend beyond the SOL due to fraud.

It is now to WADA to determine if their rules are appropriate, and cover the extended SOL, which they apparently have previously upheld in the USADA v Hellebuyck case.

There is a pissload of points still to be argued by the relevant authorities, but this is where we are at present - the Italian case surrounding Dr. Ferrari appears to contain even more names, so we aren't out of the rough just yet.


All true, but USADA's case against Schumi is based on his work with US athletes and teams. What I meant to say then, is their only interest is the US athletes, teams, and races on US soil.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:28 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:30 pm
Posts: 1255
Location: Desk
retrocomeback wrote:
I use the term hearsay loosely, on the legal basis that evidence from a co accused suspect (as I understand this evidence to be) cannot be relied upon to form the substantive evidence of the alleged offence. It might be good enough for a sporting authority but not a courtroom I'm afraid.


An Arbitration process in a sporting (or other) environments is about a 'balance of probabilities' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Thats why in this case the sanction relates to the removal of race wins and not to a term of prison.

The few cases where this sort of evidence turned into a custodial or probation sentence happened was due to the proof of perjury, or additional proof that criminal activity was beyond doubt. Did Ben Johnson go to Prison? Dwain Chambers? No, but they were sanctioned and this is where we are on this case.

Witness testimony supplied under penalty of perjury is not 'hearsay', albeit in this case, there appear to have been no criminal laws broken. But, the American legal system still relies on the perjury clause to get some sense out of those testifying.

Using PED's in the USA was not illegal in the time-frame we are discussing - perjury still is a crime.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:37 pm 
eBay Outing Master
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 8000
gerryattrick wrote:
Do you really believe that everyone in this whole disaster is wrong except Armstrong, and that he has done nothing to be blamed or punished for?


Absolutely not

If it looks like a turd, smells like a turd and sticks to your shoes like a turd...it probably is a turd

There is also enough evidence this has been a witch hunt because without the actual evidence the proof is scant. There is quite a bit however of people evidence but this and how it was approved by the usda is dubious at best.

As I've said before if it truly was about catching drug cheats then those who testified against lance if still professionally racing should have been permamnently life long banned the minute it was found out. Instead and in order to make a case against lance some of those were allowed to finish the professional racing season and of those some have recieved only a 6 month ban which starts..in the off season

Lance was retired but banned for life..those still racing were allowed to continue and in the off season got a 6 month ban...you cannot look at it any other way than a witch hunt...by all means ban him if you think he deserves it..but don't make it personal with a rubber band set of rules

DA-EVO wrote:
In this particular case, USADA claimed evidence against Armstrong that he decided not to contest. Once that was the case, a decision was reached and sanctions were created. .


which is quite correct but it higlihgts a weakness in the usdas case should it be challenged

Lance had always had an acromonious relationship with the usda often sticking two fingers up at them whilst apparently staying within the agreed and declared rules...so when he retired I wouldn't mind betting when he got the usda saying hey buddy you gotta go to a tribunial and lance saying wanna bet...i've retired..up ya ass

As to the legal attempts suggested to take lance to court re monies..I think that might not be a great move either as that wanders into legal cases where the element of proof is much higher than cyclings body demands


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:40 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:30 pm
Posts: 1255
Location: Desk
Pyro Tim wrote:

All true, but USADA's case against Schumi is based on his work with US athletes and teams. What I meant to say then, is their only interest is the US athletes, teams, and races on US soil.


I see your point, but the redacted riders list within the USADA decision has been looked at on a few forums, heres a list or 'rider x' and 'other x' that are supposedly still under observation or undergoing sanctions.

http://www.2cycle.be/forum/showthread.p ... number=112

There is a more prominent one elsewhere, but thats a goos starting point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:57 pm 
retrobike rider / Gold Trader
retrobike rider / Gold Trader

Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:30 pm
Posts: 1255
Location: Desk
sylus wrote:

DA-EVO wrote:
In this particular case, USADA claimed evidence against Armstrong that he decided not to contest. Once that was the case, a decision was reached and sanctions were created. .


which is quite correct but it higlihgts a weakness in the usdas case should it be challenged


Until today, the UCI had the opportunity to challenge, yet they did not. There is only now WADA left to challenge it, if they don't (and I have pointed out several times they have an opportunity to), there is no recourse for Armstrong to challenge it.

He cannot go to CAS and claim he had no right to a fair arbitration process, even a Texas state judge agreed with USADA on that, he had the opportunity to go against USADA, and if that didn't work, he could go to the UCI or the CAS.

Do you think that his personal sponsors took their decisions to remove their endorsements lightly? Would they have run this via 'legal' first?

It is a sad day in cycling for a lot of reasons but rarely does any organisation worth its salt do these things off the cuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:16 am 
BoTM Winner / Gold Trader
BoTM Winner / Gold Trader
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 12:36 am
Posts: 4715
Location: Burlington, ON Canada
DA-EVO wrote:
An Arbitration process in a sporting (or other) environments is about a 'balance of probabilities' and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Thats why in this case the sanction relates to the removal of race wins and not to a term of prison.

The few cases where this sort of evidence turned into a custodial or probation sentence happened was due to the proof of perjury, or additional proof that criminal activity was beyond doubt. Did Ben Johnson go to Prison? Dwain Chambers? No, but they were sanctioned and this is where we are on this case.

Witness testimony supplied under penalty of perjury is not 'hearsay', albeit in this case, there appear to have been no criminal laws broken. But, the American legal system still relies on the perjury clause to get some sense out of those testifying.

Using PED's in the USA was not illegal in the time-frame we are discussing - perjury still is a crime.


One only has to look into the US congressional hearings (in effect an upscale grand jury) into the use of PEDs in baseball. A number of players were convicted and either jailed (Bonds) or given probation/suspended sentences (Mc Guire, Clemmens), not for using them, but for committing perjury during their testimony. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere down the road Lance at least winds up with an ankle bracelet, if not a room at a minimum security prison/country club.


Last edited by FMJ on Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 12:32 am 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:58 pm
Posts: 2362
Location: Bournemouth
bedankt, maar mein Hollands is neet so goede


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:20 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 3:35 pm
Posts: 434
Location: Derby, UK
There are currently sources that are saying Lance might confess to doping?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/20921004


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:50 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:13 pm
Posts: 8176
Location: Tredavoe, Cornwall
I'm sick of the sight of the bloke.

Lets hope he goes down for perjury.



al.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: al-onestare and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group