Tumbleweed Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 There is no defence, agreed, but he still is being charged and subsequently banned. Being provided with the details of the charges against you surely isn't too much too ask? Tense is wrong. Has been charged and banned. The UCI has every right to ask for the report. Lance's lawyers have no right to demand Usada gives UCI the report. Of course, a cynic would suggest that lance's team want the report handed over soon because they know - wink, wink, nudge, nudge - that Fat Pat has fixed it to overturn the ban.
dracs Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Nothing smelly. The USADA is required to make a case against LA. They will share all the evidence they needed to prove their case. They will put all of that evidence in a report. why do they need to be selective about what they include (and EXCLUDE) from a report for the body who is required to carry out the USADA sanction? Your answer above doesn't answer..... I'm not talking about LA - I agree he decided not to participate so as an individual I believe he has waived rights to demand anyhting directly from USADA (and his attorneys are not actually asking for this now they are asking why the full file is not being shared with UCI). Between conducting an investigation and preparing a charge, there is a significant assessment and weighing of evidence to ensure that contradictions are eliminated, evidence that may not stand up to scrutiny is discarded etc.Scary comment right there kind of gets to the nub of this. USADA's decision and sanction was made ages ago. now they want to be selective with what is going to be shared with the body that must preside over the ban and the removal of his 7 tours outside of the statute of limitations. this decision was made some time ago on the file as it existed, yet it takes a couple of months to re-rcreate something new when being looked at by another entity... why? I want to know everything or at least if I really can't I want someone other than the USADA to. Edited October 10, 2012 by dracs
scotty Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 Of course, a cynic would suggest that lance's team want the report handed over soon because they know - wink, wink, nudge, nudge - that Fat Pat has fixed it to overturn the ban.How would he get that right ? Surely Fat Pat would be setting himself up if he manipulated the data. USADA could easily see through that.
andydude Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 How would he get that right ? Surely Fat Pat would be setting himself up if he manipulated the data. USADA could easily see through that. Obviously you don't know the cosy history between Lance and Pat/UCI?! petatodd 1
andydude Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 My thinking is that the UCI is trying to gain some credibility in this whole fiasco by requesting the report, because they've "investigated" LA many times, but found "nothing". Here comes the USADA and with their investigation has built a very strong case (so strong LA doesn't want to arbitrate) and this puts UCI in a very bad light. Like everything in life, this to comes down to power. Which ranks higher than money. petatodd 1
scotty Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Obviously you don't know the cosy history between Lance and Pat/UCI?!Even so, how would Pat be able to cover up or omit certain information. USADA will have the information as well and can easily prove if Pat is covering up, discrediting him and the organization. USADA have also been accused of having an agenda, so why be selective in what you do or do not hand over. Edited October 10, 2012 by scotty
Wyatt Earp Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 I actually think he's a great athlete without drugs too! I agree.Take numerous riders and pump them with dope to the eyeballs and I can assure you they still won't get anywhere near the top.Dit hang af wat jou mamma en pappa vir jou gegee het.
dracs Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 My thinking is that the UCI is trying to gain some credibility in this whole fiasco by requesting the report, because they've "investigated" LA many times, but found "nothing". Here comes the USADA and with their investigation has built a very strong case (so strong LA doesn't want to arbitrate) and this puts UCI in a very bad light. Like everything in life, this to comes down to power. Which ranks higher than money.Speculation. There is nothing at all unusual or strange about the party carrying out a sanction to see all the evidence of the party carrying out the investigation... The contrary would be unusual / strange.
SwissVan Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Speculation. There is nothing at all unusual or strange about the party carrying out a sanction to see all the evidence of the party carrying out the investigation... The contrary would be unusual / strange. Good point, i thought it was standard practise but then i probably watched to much Petrocelli when i was younger.. Generaly there is a whole lot of thinking and speculating going on, still....We the people all know he probably did but we want R12500.00 per month hard E V I D E N C E Edited October 10, 2012 by SwissVan dracs 1
dracs Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 Good point, i thought it was standard practise but then i probably watched to much Petrocelli when i was younger.. Generaly there is a whole lot of thinking and speculating going on, still....We the people all know he probably did but we want demand R12500.00 per month hard E V I D E N C EAnd R12500 a month! SwissVan 1
Barend de Arend Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 Speculation. There is nothing at all unusual or strange about the party carrying out a sanction to see all the evidence of the party carrying out the investigation... The contrary would be unusual / strange. It would be just as unusual to publicly announce evidence in an on-going case (ie. Johan Bruyneel) The evidence for both is linked, because it came out of the same investigation.
dracs Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 It would be just as unusual to publicly announce evidence in an on-going case (ie. Johan Bruyneel) The evidence for both is linked, because it came out of the same investigation.fair point although they have announced plenty - just not specifics. And we are talking about giving everything to UCI at this ppoint - not public (necesarily although ultimately one hopes we get an unfiltered version too)
SwissVan Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 It would be just as unusual to publicly announce evidence in an on-going case (ie. Johan Bruyneel) The evidence for both is linked, because it came out of the same investigation. Reading between the lines then TH's Secret Race book is unusualy premature then...
Eldron Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 What is more amazing than this whole thread is that Lance can still rock a 90km TT in 2 hours. In a triathlon... Fook me that is rapid!
eddy Posted October 10, 2012 Posted October 10, 2012 Speculation. There is nothing at all unusual or strange about the party carrying out a sanction to see all the evidence of the party carrying out the investigation... The contrary would be unusual / strange. i am not sure you are right. Certainly, all evidence the prosecution will rely on to make the case needs to be presented. Not everything that surfaces in the police investigation needs to be brought to the court, nor is it ever.
.thumb.jpg.f7359a62a1f4f4199fdd069d76f07b79.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now