Now i've seen just about everything...

Talk about anything but keep it polite and reasonably clean.
Post Reply
User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Now i've seen just about everything...

Post by RAYC »

A surprisingly thoughtful comment piece from someone better known for his thuggery.
Rob C.
mpij
Fonseca LBV
Posts: 148
Joined: 23:58 Mon 13 Feb 2012
Location: Dundee Scotland uk

Re: Now i've seen just about everything...

Post by mpij »

Interesting piece from legal angle: http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/ ... l?spref=tw
User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: Now i've seen just about everything...

Post by RAYC »

interesting...?

Possibly. But from a legal standpoint (in my view), rather misguided.

The argument that USADA did not have jurisdiction is weak, as far as i can tell. I will post links tomorrow re: USADA's jurisdiction - certainly from what i have read, there is little scope for argument....USADA's jurisdiction is clear, well rehearsed, and supported by WADA as authors of the "Code" referred to (that is, the WADA code).

UCI of course, in the interests of self-preservation, were keen to conclude otherwise. WADA, authors of the code, were quick to dismiss their arguments/"concerns". And whilst their word, admittedly, is not (in and of itself) the be-all and end-all, it surely does count for something. And in any event, Lance's well paid legal team could not convince a federal judge that USADA was outside its jurisdiction or that its arbitration process was unfair....

But further, this legal expert suggests that the outcome of this should have been decided before CAS - well, as he presumably well knows, it could have been...had Armstrong decided to first contest USADA's charges. By not contesting, Armstrong is the sole person who determined that it did not progress that far....

Plus...at the end of the day...lawyers like this make a great deal of money out of rather contrived "due process" arguments even when the evidence overwhelmingly and incontrovertibly suggests that their client is rotten to the core...i therefore think you have to take what they say with a pinch of salt!
Last edited by RAYC on 06:18 Tue 16 Oct 2012, edited 1 time in total.
Rob C.
User avatar
RAYC
Taylor Quinta de Vargellas 1987
Posts: 2060
Joined: 23:50 Tue 04 May 2010
Location: London

Re: Now i've seen just about everything...

Post by RAYC »

WADA's take on USADA's jurisdiction, as expressed in a letter to UCI (see exhibit CC here)
Code Article 15.3 is quite clear that where anti-doping rule violations are not premised upon a specific Sample, that results management and hearings are governed by the procedural rules of the Anti- Doping Organization (ADO) ‟which discovered the violation.” In this case, and based on the fact known to us at this stage, there seems to be no question that the ADO which discovered the violations is USADA. Therefore, USADA’s results management procedure (i.e., the ‟USADA Protocol”) is controlling.

Your letters stating that the UCI is the results management authority in these cases purport to base that conclusion on UCI rules which in this case would conflict with the plain meaning of Code Article 15.3 and would, under your interpretation, broaden UCI’s results management authority to cases where merely evidence supportive of a rule violation was discovered by a UCI license holder or member. We do not believe that UCI has accurately interpreted its own rules in this regard. Rules need to be interpreted in light of the Code and the clear language of Article 15.3 of the Code leaves no room for the interpretation that UCI is making of its own rules.

...

The Code confers results management authority on the ADO ‟which discovered the violation,” not on the ADO which discovered the first shred of evidence that led to an investigation which then led to the discovery of violations. Moreover, it is clear that the UCI did not in any sense ‟discover” the 30 April 2010, email from Floyd Landis which was sent to USA Cycling President Steve Johnson and which was transmitted to USADA on 1 May 2010 with a request by Mr. Johnson for USADA to investigate. UCI cannot add language in its rules altering Article 15.3 of the Code and crediting UCI with the ‟discovery” of evidence that was actually discovered by another organization. Further, WADA understands from USADA that USADA’s communications with Mr. Landis about the topics in his email predated that email by several weeks. Accordingly, there is no basis under the Code or in common sense for the UCI’s assertion that it, rather than USADA, has results management authority in this case.

In addition to the UCI rules, we also understand that USADA’s authority to proceed against U.S. athlete Lance Armstrong derives independently from USADA’s substantive anti-doping rules and USADA’s results management authority under USADA’s own Code compliant rules. Pursuant to the Code, USADA’s rules are applicable to Mr. Armstrong by virtue of Mr. Armstrong’s membership in the USADA Registered Testing Pool, his former membership in USA Cycling and his current membership in USA Triathlon.
Article 15.3 of the WADA code, in case you want to see for yourself, can be found on page 92 of the following link (here)
Rob C.
Post Reply