USADA Banned Armstrong new Doping Allegations

Questions about bike hire abroad and everything light bike related. No off-topic chat please

Moderator: Moderator Team

User avatar
ChristianB
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:09 am
Location: DK/Slovenia

by ChristianB


User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5432
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

Is that a joke posting?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108847964/Jud ... -Landis-En wrote:forbids
Floyd Landis to state that the Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat)McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of shit, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, or to make any similar other allegations of that kind;
My bolding.

Well, I guess it's not a joke, unless cyclingnews, Reuters, and other have been "had".
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-c ... ation-case
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ ... VK20121003 (this article doesn't have all the "colorful" language.

russianbear
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:40 am

by russianbear

This is hilarious because it paints the swiss court in obvious favor with the UCI.

Unless..when I read it, I got the impression that they are using what Landis said (his own words etc) but I'm not aware that he has said anything like that? Either way it's very strange.

What if Landis just ignores this stuff though and doesn't go back to Switzerland where they could punish him. How do these international lawsuits work? How does a swiss court have jurisdiction to make an American pay a swiss organization in swiss money...?

KWalker
Posts: 5862
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:30 pm
Location: Bay Area

by KWalker

It doesn't, that's the funniest part. He can continue doing what he wants so long as he does enter Switzerland with a warrant for his arrest.
Don't take me too seriously. The only person that doesn't hate Froome.
Gramz
Failed Custom Bike

Mr.Gib
Posts: 3121
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

But there couldn't be a warrant for his arrest because it was just a civil matter. The UCI would be limited to seizing or placing a lien on any property that Landis has in Switzerland. Maybe there is jail time for refusal to pay? Not familiar with Swiss civil law. A toothless victory.

And how did they get into court so fast?
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

User avatar
HammerTime2
Posts: 5432
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed

by HammerTime2

HammerTime2 wrote:Is that a joke posting?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/108847964/Jud ... -Landis-En wrote:forbids
Floyd Landis to state that the Union Cycliste Internationale, Patrick (Pat)McQuaid and/or Henricus (Hein) Verbruggen have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of shit, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, or to make any similar other allegations of that kind;
My bolding.

Well, I guess it's not a joke, unless cyclingnews, Reuters, and other have been "had".
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/swiss-c ... ation-case
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/ ... VK20121003 (this article doesn't have all the "colorful" language.

Well, Floyd might not be allowed to call McQuaid a clown, but no court, Swiss or otherwise, has yet ruled that I can't.
http://inrng.com/2012/07/uci-president-wrong/ wrote:
“I’ve read what they’ve said but as they’re not licence holders so I don’t know how they can ban them or what they can be banned for”

“From the UCI’s point of view we can’t see how these guys can be sanctioned for life,” said McQuaid. “They are not UCI licence holders, so under what grounds can they be sanctioned?”

Those are the words of the Pat McQuaid, president of cycling’s governing body, the UCI. The first quote is after speaking to cyclingnews.com, the second is after speaking to Velonews. He was commenting today on the lifetime ban issued by the US Anti-Doping Agency to Luis Garcia del Moral, Michele Ferrari and Jose “Pepe” Martí, all three staff or helpers of the US Postal Cycling team.

Only President McQuaid needs to check the UCI rulebook . The anti-doping code applies to all licence holders, that is obvious. But Article 18 says it applies to all team staff as well, even if they have no team licence. So there are good grounds for the UCI to apply USADA’s ban worldwide.


Here is the relevant rule (my emphasis)

Non-License-Holders
18. 1. a) Any Person who, without being a holder of a license, participates in a cycling Event in any capacity whatsoever, including, without limitation, as a rider, coach, trainer, manager, team director, team staff, agent, official, medical or para-medical personnel or parent and;
b) Any Person who, without being a holder of a license, participates, in the framework of a club, trade team, national federation or any other structure participating in Races, in the preparation or support of riders for sports competitions; shall be subject to these Anti-Doping Rules and these Anti-Doping Rules shall apply to each such Person as they apply to a License-Holder.

In short it is stated that the UCI has clear jurisdiction over non-licence holders and the rule even specifies medical staff. Given the demonstrable roles of the trio as team staff and their wrongdoing I don’t understand why the President thinks he can’t do anything. If USADA has imposed a lifetime ban on these three for their cycling-related anti-doping violations then the UCI should be studying USADA’s ruling with urgent attention with a view to applying the ban worldwide.
This McQuaid clown is more incompetent than the substitute NFL referees. The UCI could be served as well, or better, by picking a random high school English teacher/track coach as head of the UCI.

artray
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm

by artray

Armstrong must be laughing is ass off watching this unfold.

User avatar
ChristianB
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 9:09 am
Location: DK/Slovenia

by ChristianB

Well, they say the one that laughs last, laughs the best.... But let's see how this unfolds further. As far as I know Swiss courts has no jurisdiction in USA, so maybe Landis laughs just as much. Can anyone with any real knowledge about this subject maybe enlighten me: Can UCI make their claims valid through the american cycling association? (I presume not) Would a verdict in a swiss court make the american cycling foundation have a better case in the states, if they were to pursue the matter in an american court?

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

breaking news: the Republic of Pedystan declared Lance Armstrong, former honourable citizien of it's capitol Syringa, a persona non grata
Last edited by tymon_tm on Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8609
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

If the case came up on US Court the UCI may not have won, by the basic premise of our Freedom of Speech.
The UCI could bring up the case against Landis for slander in a civil case, however. If the UCI were to do that, in order to win they would need to convince a jury that what has been said has had a quantitative impact on the UCI's operations - literally, Landis saying such-and-such has cost them this-much money.

It will be interesting to see what happens when/if the USADA releases their findings & evidence (I'm still hoping they do).

F**** and Kirya Shmona just scored against Lyon. I better go back to watching the game. :evil:
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

funny.we're hoping to see the evidence that led to stripping one of the most succesfull athletes of nearly all his titles.
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8609
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

?

Sorry, please don't involve me in your bickering over useless shit and my use of the word 'hoping'. I just posted specifically about the case as it stands now and I'd rather not be implied in the rather childish nature of the comments that people have taken in regards to the lives of others.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

wow, i'm sorry i dared answering to your comment in a manner so unapropriate and disregarded by your sense of quality debate... c'mon, really?
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

User avatar
prendrefeu
Posts: 8609
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Location: Los Feliz, Los Angeles, California
Contact:

by prendrefeu

Yes, really. Grow up.
Exp001 || Other projects in the works.

User avatar
tymon_tm
Posts: 2364
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:35 pm

by tymon_tm

i have. actually i don't quite understand why you're picking at me for a comment that was just, as you said yourself, posting specifically about the case as it stands now. cause we do hope to see the evidence, no? i don't see why go personal over this, but hey, it's a free internet brother. over

sorry for OT
kkibbler wrote: WW remembers.

Locked
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post