koukie Posted October 13, 2012 Share Why don't you rather read USADA's document? That's the proof, or at least it's the basis for them sanctioning the various riders the way they have.is it somewhere in the 127 pages of this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaStig Posted October 13, 2012 Share I understand Lefty's point, people always advocate its not what you know its what you can proof. So I cant understand how they can strip his titles if they dont have proof. If they can do it without proof then i'm also misinformed and dont know how they can do it. I have not read much about this topic, just started the book "the secret race" maybe when i'm done i will have a better understanding.That is the same argument used against the "bio passport", where you can face sanction without there really being any "proof"as such except for suspect values, but it has been accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoLefty!! Posted October 13, 2012 Share Somewhere else on the World Tour, Tony Martin just defended his Tour of Beijing title.Must say, the racing was very good despite all the storm clouds swirling in the sport. Fat Pat was questioned by the media on arrival in China and couldn't comment but to say the matter is in the hands of the UCI's legal department. Yip and that's where I'm going with this. In other cases the stripping of titles has been conducted based on material evidence and after following due process.In the case presented by the USADA, due process was not followed and the evidence is mostly circumstantial wrt to the '98 to 05 event titles. The UCI may be in a very tough spot to follow through on the USADA's recommendations. If I recall, the UCI is based in Switzerland and a lawyer pal told me that in Switzerland, material evidence is required to make a case.If the UCI does not act, they will be seen as not being able to enforce anti doping practices which weakens their positionIf it was a clear cut case, the UCI would not be leaving the report with their lawyers. We'll see how it plays out but I hope USADA have not put the cart before the horse... Signed,The Clown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted October 13, 2012 Share is it somewhere in the 127 pages of this thread? There's a link here. And here's another:http://cyclinginvestigation.usada.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted October 13, 2012 Share In the case presented by the USADA, due process was not followed a Please explain? They collected evidence, were taken to court over their process, and came out on top? So tell me how you know better about the processes they followed than a judge in the USA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoLefty!! Posted October 13, 2012 Share The judge said it's outside the courts jurisdiction. He didn't say he agreed with the process followed. He essentially left it up to USADA to decide how it wanted to proceed. He did not say that he advised them to continue. USADA collected statements. Anyone knows that when you go to court a statement is not proof until it stands up to cross examination.LA and his lawyers were never given the opportunity to cross examine. They were merely informed this is happening and asked to comment on "evidence" they had not seen. AS far as a Swiss court is concerned, thats not enoughhe on the UCI to waive the riders right to confidentiality wrt to the samples. They want the UCI to bring a case against LA.Not sure how that possible if the events in question are outside the statute of limitations. So how will the UCI take this forward? Its clearly not as clear cut as the experts on the forum would have me believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
101SCC Posted October 13, 2012 Share In other cases the stripping of titles has been conducted based on material evidence and after following due process. I'm afraid you are not correct here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Pellizotti You mentioned earlier that all cases have been linked to a positive test. Not anymore... We all respect well informed opinion, unfortunately you are basing an opinion short of all the facts. This case runs for years. USADA have been busy since 2006. Matt White also came out today and confirmed doping on Postal, the evidence and testimonies mount. Pat has not commented on the case as he's still trying to get both feet out of his mouth from the last time he spoke on the case. Follow Paul Kimmage on Twitter to get an inide into the UCI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted October 13, 2012 Share Its clearly not as clear cut as the experts on the forum would have me believe. Funny how it is already enough for Cycling USA (not USADA, for those of you who read too quickly), The Canadian Cycling Federation, the organisers of the Tour de France, the owners of the Radioshack Nissan Trek Team, and God knows who else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted October 13, 2012 Share I'm afraid you are not correct here. Yip, been mentioned many times on this thread that the precedent of being sanctioned without a positive test has been set by WADA and the UCI long before this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Dale Posted October 13, 2012 Share “You ask if I doped? Ok here is the answer. No I did not dope in the past, I don’t do it now and not planning to in the future.” Jens Voigt on Tweetiebird... Edited October 13, 2012 by ' Dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNT1 Posted October 13, 2012 Share “You ask if I doped? Ok here is the answer. No I did not dope in the past, I don’t do it now and not planning to in the future.” Jens Voigt on Tweetee-bird. Lance said that, and continues to say it. Sorry, Dale, can you really believe a single rider after this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Dale Posted October 13, 2012 Share Lance said that, and continues to say it. Sorry, Dale, can you really believe a single rider after this? It's tough to believe....The prevailing culture of doping was too far-reaching. :-/ Edited October 13, 2012 by ' Dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Dale Posted October 13, 2012 Share Sky Procycling will ask all of its staff members — among them sporting director Sean Yates, a former teammate and longtime friend of Lance Armstrong’s — to confirm that they have no issues that could breach the team’s zero-tolerance policy regarding doping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Buttox Posted October 13, 2012 Share Having read both The Secret Race and David Millar's book in the last while, I just want to know why noone has bothered to look at circumstantial EPO evidence in the period? Apparently the biggest effect by far is in a 3 week Tour and it's impossible for the human body to naturally sustain a hemacrit level over that period. Even if on day 1 of the Tour (e.g.) it was at 50, as allowed in the rules, anyone tested in week 3 who was still there is clearly doping? But I can't seem to find if any of these bodies actually bothered to think "Doh... it's the same as it was at the start of the bloody Tour"... and since LA would have been tested a lot in the last week when he won stages, it should be bleeding obvious... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Dale Posted October 13, 2012 Share Nice tone in this article about cycling, in entirety. http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2012/10/12/after-the-fire/ Danger Dassie 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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