The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[thom]

Interesting, the UCI are not considering taking USADA to CAS regarding LA...
"The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist. They (USADA) have a full case file so let them provide the full case file," McQuaid told Reuters by telephone.
"And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."

Also denied entry to the Chicago marathon.

It seems like the USADA sanctions really will hold.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Interesting, the UCI are not considering taking USADA to CAS regarding LA...
"The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist. They (USADA) have a full case file so let them provide the full case file," McQuaid told Reuters by telephone.
"And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."

Also denied entry to the Chicago marathon.

Which is great. provided the UCI can get ASO to follow suit.

 

[thom]

Which is great. provided the UCI can get ASO to follow suit.

My thoughts would be that would be very unlikely if technically possible. More likely could be LA going to CAS.
I wonder to what extent it's in the UCI's interest to keep this out of the courts too...

 

[Red Light]

Interesting, the UCI are not considering taking USADA to CAS regarding LA...
"The UCI has no reason to assume that a full case file does not exist. They (USADA) have a full case file so let them provide the full case file," McQuaid told Reuters by telephone.
"And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."

Also denied entry to the Chicago marathon.

It seems like the USADA sanctions really will hold.

Be interesting to see how they react to a file that allegedly contains the allegation that UCI had a Swiss positive test dropped when UCI have strenuously denied it ever happened. Plus ditto the allegation that Armstrong had them call Hamilton in.

 

[Chuffy]

Which is great. provided the UCI can get ASO to follow suit.

What do ASO have to do with it? They're a race organiser, not a governing body.

I'd still not put it past McQuaid to do a u-turn. After all, he said that UCI would accept USADA jurisdiction while composing a letter to Judge Sparks disputing it! He's also given himself wiggle room in that statement..."And unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS (Court of Arbitration for Sport) or not to recognize the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong."

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My thoughts would be that would be very unlikely if technically possible. More likely could be LA going to CAS.
I wonder to what extent it's in the UCI's interest to keep this out of the courts too...

Good point well made. UCI have lots of reasons, or so it appears at present, to ensure it goes nowhere near a court.

and boy will I be glad when the evidence is made public so we can stop speculating.

 

[Red Light]

What do ASO have to do with it? They're a race organiser, not a governing body.

Last time ASO had a spat with UCI and said they were running their races to their rules, not UCIs, UCI backed down.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Be interesting to see how they react to a file that allegedly contains the allegation that UCI had a Swiss positive test dropped when UCI have strenuously denied it ever happened. Plus ditto the allegation that Armstrong had them call Hamilton in.

that file will get weeded is what.

 

[Red Light]

that file will get weeded is what.

To weed it they would have to leave out the Landis & Hamilton evidence completely. Selectively editing their statements would be tampering with the evidence and a big no-no.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

To weed it they would have to leave out the Landis & Hamilton evidence completely. Selectively editing their statements would be tampering with the evidence and a big no-no.

How do we know what their statements actual say? It isn't a court of law thing, they can disclose as much or as little as they like, especially now LA has thrown in the towel.

 

[Red Light]

How do we know what their statements actual say? It isn't a court of law thing, they can disclose as much or as little as they like, especially now LA has thrown in the towel.

Forensics have their ways of finding these things out - I won a US court case by showing that material was (fraudulently) added later to a document.

Now none of this is a legal process and its between Switzerland and the USA to complicate matters but it would be a very serious matter if USADA were found to be editing evidence in their favour.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Forensics have their ways of finding these things out - I won a US court case by showing that material was (fraudulently) added later to a document.

Now none of this is a legal process and its between Switzerland and the USA to complicate matters but it would be a very serious matter if USADA were found to be editing evidence in their favour.

They don't have to edit it. (SHAMEFULLY) They merely only have to present those parts of the file to public scrutiny they chose to. They're not under any obligation to anyone to do otherwise. (WORSE LUCK) They could send the whole thing to UCI but redact (or weed or omit) whatever they like when they publish it - (DISGRACEFULLY) there's simply no 'due process' despite acts having been committed that are crimes in some of the territories they were committed in.

But no doubt someone will pop up in a minute to tell me that, in their, no doubt, supremely qualified opinion I've not followed pro-cycling for long enough or in sufficient detail or breadth to be entitled to express any opinion on anything, or they'll report this thread/comment or demand folk be banned.....

(Thread lock is the new black)

 

[Strathlubnaig]

Interesting summary article in the globe & mail today
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...-line-up-to-talk-about-doping/article4523921/

 

[Red Light]

They don't have to edit it. (SHAMEFULLY) They merely only have to present those parts of the file to public scrutiny they chose to. They're not under any obligation to anyone to do otherwise. (WORSE LUCK) They could send the whole thing to UCI but redact (or weed or omit) whatever they like when they publish it - (DISGRACEFULLY) there's simply no 'due process' despite acts having been committed that are crimes in some of the territories they were committed in.

We'll see but such gaps are fairly easy to spot in evidence and don't forget a lot of it is testimony so it will be continuous rather than in lots of bits and pieces which makes the detection of missing bits even easier. Any gaps will be as embarrassing for USADA, particularly because of the US philosophy of full disclosure) as the gaps in the Nixon tapes. Redactions will just cause a furore of pressure and speculation about what is under the black ink.

 

[mickle]

Im sorry. What gaps are these of which you speak?