Armstrong charged and banned

[Chuffy]

I forget, what specifically did you point out that turned out to be relevant?

I can heartily recommend the 'ignore' feature.

 

[ufkacbln]

I forget, what specifically did you point out that turned out to be relevant?

1. That the USADA was less than forthcoming about the evidence - and that that was questionable practice
2. That unless the USADA was careful they would end up being on trial as well
3. That a worst case scenario was Armstrong being supported in his claims against USADA and the case being dismissed because of a failure on USADA to play by the rules.

 

[Chuffy]

You can say whatever you like, but it's about as audible as a ghost farting in a hurricane.

 

[yello]

​

If it should come to pass that Armstrong does not actually receive adequate notice sufficiently in advance of the arbitration hearing, and it is brought to this Court's attention in an appropriate manner, USADA is unlikely to appreciate the result."

"If it should come to pass"...

Yes, as I said, he's required them to do nothing other than follow their procedures as laid out in their own protocols. Armstrong will see the evidence in accordance with that. Sparks has made no additional requirement, no "clock of secrecy" has been "whipped away".

Red Light, please, look objectively rather that twisting words to meet your own interpretation.

 

[yello]

1. That the USADA was less than forthcoming about the evidence - and that that was questionable practice
2. That unless the USADA was careful they would end up being on trial as well
3. That a worst case scenario was Armstrong being supported in his claims against USADA and the case being dismissed because of a failure on USADA to play by the rules.

1. was a concern raised by many, myself included, However, Sparks accepted it albeit with reservation.
2. is self evident and would apply to any person bringing a court action
3. again, self evident and it didn't happen. USADA played by the rules as many thought they would.

If you want to credit yourself with identifying those issues and claim some kind of victory for it then please do, be my guest. I'm interested only in USADA v Armstrong.

 

[Chuffy]

I think it's fair to say that Judge Sparks doesn't follow cycling and is unaware of the politics between various bodies. No reason why he should be, but it certainly colours his remarks.

 

[rich p]

If a barrack room lawyer clutching at straws can't see the woods for the trees - does it make a hollow sound?

 

[Chuffy]

What would Arthur Wellesley make of it?

 

[yello]

I think it's fair to say that Judge Sparks doesn't follow cycling and is unaware of the politics between various bodies. No reason why he should be, but it certainly colours his remarks.

I reckon that's a fair assessment. He's been even handed and done as any parent of squabbling teenage kids would do in as much as he doesn't care who started it! The difference being, he's saying it's not his problem to sort out either.

 

[Chuffy]

I reckon that's a fair assessment. He's been even handed and done as any parent of squabbling teenage kids would do in as much as he doesn't care who started it! The difference being, he's saying it's not his problem to sort out either.

This almost as much about USADA taking on elements of the UCI isn't it? If USADA have been frustrated by Lance's apparent teflon coating, how much more angry much they be about the way that the UCI (specifically McQuaid and Verbruggen) seem to have shielded him?

 

[rich p]

The silly thing is that if the UCI had taken over there is no way that USADA wouold have let them cover things up, surely? LA was always on a loser.
If he was innocent he'd have happily gone to an independent arbitrator as was offered.

 

[Red Light]

You can say whatever you like, but it's about as audible as a ghost farting in a hurricane.

aka

 

[Flying_Monkey]

There's one rather bizarre statement in the ruling - Sparks describes USADA's the timing of their decision to proceed with a case against Armstrong now as "mystifying."

It's not though, it's quite obvious why USADA are doing this now. It is because:
1. they were waiting for the federal inquiry into the US Postal team to wrap up;
2. they now have access to all the material that was gathered during that process; and,
3. Armstrong had decided to make a comeback in professional sport, in triathlon.

I am mystified that anyone could describe the timing as 'mystifying.'

 

[Chuffy]

There's one rather bizarre statement in the ruling - Sparks describes USADA's the timing of their decision to proceed with a case against Armstrong now as "mystifying."

It's not though, it's quite obvious why USADA are doing this now. It is because:
1. they were waiting for the federal inquiry into the US Postal team to wrap up;
2. they now have access to all the material that was gathered during that process; and,
3. Armstrong had decided to make a comeback in professional sport, in triathlon.

I am mystified that anyone could describe the timing as 'mystifying.'

You'd almost expect the words 'and who is this Armstrong guy anyway?'

 

[Flying_Monkey]

You'd almost expect the words 'and who is this Armstrong guy anyway?'

"I believe he is a professional velocipede pilot, your honour."