GrumpyOldGuy Posted August 7, 2012 Share Agreed. What changed? Why did McQuaid originally refuse to comment on the issue? And now he's fighting against the action? Methinks someone called in a marker… Yes, seems to be the general thought pattern from the reports I see. Whichever way it go's it will certainly cause a bit of a stir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted August 7, 2012 Share I do not think the UCI do not understand their rules... its gonna be great! Well, yes sure, in some ways it will be a "line drawn in the sand" regarding jurisdictions so to speak. Just a pity they cant work together in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted August 7, 2012 Share People thought I was crazy and stupid when I made the comment that they need Armstrong to give an admission of guilt.Without that, this will go nowhere. As for the thread heading, should it not be changed to Armstrong still in the news. goya-goya 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted August 7, 2012 Share Yes, seems to be the general thought pattern from the reports I see. Whichever way it go's it will certainly cause a bit of a stir. For sure. I think the argument that the UCI has jurisdiction because they were "UCI tests" seems flimsy. Are there any precedents of this kind of intervention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyOldGuy Posted August 7, 2012 Share For sure. I think the argument that the UCI has jurisdiction because they were "UCI tests" seems flimsy. Are there any precedents of this kind of intervention? No, not that I have seen or heard about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted August 8, 2012 Share No, not that I have seen or heard about. I think Pat is causing untold trouble for himself and the UCI. Anyhows, WADA supports USADA: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12586/WADA-backs-USADAs-jurisdiction-in-ArmstrongUSPS-doping-investigation.aspx Also, on the jurisdiction issue, I read somewhere last night that the issue of discovery raised by the UCI has been dealt a further blow as Floyd - who some believe is the catalyst for this investigation - spoke to USADA 10 days before contacting the UCI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petatodd Posted August 8, 2012 Share Damn. Quoted messages of blocked hubbers don't get blocked. But at least I don't see the originals so am spared some irritation at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goya-goya Posted August 8, 2012 Share I did some reading last night on "travis tygart"... If you guys are really interested in this process.... go to a search engine... select dates between and start from 2004 - 2005 all the way till 2012... I do not want to make up your opinion... but it will add a personality behind the guy who wants to be judge,jury and executioner! Go Lance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted August 8, 2012 Share For sure. I think the argument that the UCI has jurisdiction because they were "UCI tests" seems flimsy. Are there any precedents of this kind of intervention? Not that i know of but i did see the opposite. The International Tennis Federation explicitly acknowleges the USADA authority In an anologous case where the USADA banned a spanish based trainer. See towards the end of this article : http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12588/ArmstrongUS-Postal-case-UCIs-jurisdiction-claims-further-undermined-by-Landis-timing.aspx I must say, having followed Anna Zimmerman's blog, read through all linked articles and put my hitherto unused LLB to work i find it disconcerting that a sport governing body is prepared to go to court to undermine a WADA affilliate's case against an alleged doping ring. As the UCI has consistently failed to deal appropriately with drug allegations due to it's conflict of interests, this is not surprising, and further undermines its standing. I look forward to Friday's judgement with anticipation as it should move the case forwrd in one direction or the other. Alternatively, i can wait for Goya's insightful and careful analisys of the current state of play. . Edited August 8, 2012 by eddy GrumpyOldGuy and Tumbleweed 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted August 8, 2012 Share Not that i know of but i did see the opposite. The International Tennis Federation explicitly acknowleges the USADA authority In an anologous case where the USADA banned a spanish based trainer. See towards the end of this article : http://www.velonatio...dis-timing.aspx I must say, having followed Anna Zimmerman's blog, read through all linked articles and put my hitherto unused LLB to work i find it disconcerting that a sport governing body is prepared to go to court to undermine a WADA affilliate's case against an alleged doping ring. As the UCI has consistently failed to deal appropriately with drug allegations due to it's conflict of interests, this is not surprising, and further undermines its standing. I look forward to Friday's judgement with anticipation as it should move the case forwrd in one direction or the other. Alternatively, i can wait for Goya's insightful and careful analisys of the current state of play. There is talk too that the UCI's stance on this matter could put it on a collision course with the IOC. Read that in the wee hours, will try find a link. Damn. Quoted messages of blocked hubbers don't get blocked. But at least I don't see the originals so am spared some irritation at least. Sorry… goya-goya 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted August 8, 2012 Share Damn. Quoted messages of blocked hubbers don't get blocked. But at least I don't see the originals so am spared some irritation at least. +1 on that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted August 8, 2012 Share Here is a deal fellas. Let's stop speculating and quote cr@p most of us think we understand but don't really understand.The media in any case print so much rubbish and sensationalism all over the inter webs that on has to double check that it's actually paper in your hands when you buy a newspaper. Will Lance get caught or will he walk is really what this is about. I say he will be the OJ Simpson of cycling.They don't have their ducks in a row, if they did, this would have been over ages ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Zone Posted August 8, 2012 Share Dangle has it in one, as they haven't nailed him yet, the chances are slim to none that they will get him. Dangle, the stuff in the print media is little better than internet content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Earp Posted August 8, 2012 Share Dangle has it in one, as they haven't nailed him yet, the chances are slim to none that they will get him. Dangle, the stuff in the print media is little better than internet content.But only a little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Zone Posted August 8, 2012 Share But only a little exactly, just a little. Now the "facts" on the hub, that's gospel! Wyatt Earp 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Dassie Posted August 8, 2012 Share It's still funny how most see this as a 'Lance' thing from both sides. Reading between the lines is that there's a larger issue at play and a lot of influential names affected, a shaky house of cards.LA is the proverbial smoking gun in all of this, if he's brought to book, by the same reasoning also a scape goat in many ways. dracs 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