The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*

[DogTired]

Article 17 is not qualified as to the circumstances in which it applies. Therefore its not open to argument that its application should be qualified.

Strange - its part of the reasoned argument that USADA submitted. If it is as clear cut why did LA not use this as a technicality to excuse the evidence?

 

[philipbh]

Ermmm.......WADA Code section 8.3?

"Where no hearing occurs, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall submit to the Persons described
in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the action taken."
Organisation with Rights Management Responsibility = USADA (set forth in the Reasoned Argument)
Result: reasoned decision / argument (posts passim, ad nauseam)

 

[PpPete]

RL
So is the SoL thing your last remaining argument?
Would you give him back his titles if that could, hypothetically speaking of course, be shown still to be valid ?

 

[Flying_Monkey]

A proper fair and rational process that gives an unimpeachable result on his guilt or othe. What we have is a file that has glaring omissions in the evidence where it contradicts the case they are making and a judgement and sentence set by the prosecution. And because of that, rather than being a clear cut unimpeachable conclusion we have one that is suspect and will continue to be open to challenge because of it. Maybe not at first in these heady media days but down the line.

The process has been proper, fair and rational. USADA has done what it has the right to do under the rules set down by WADA, agreed to by the UCI and by every rider who rides professionally by virtue of their signing on to ride professionally. The process has been challenged in the US courts, and the challenge failed. The process itself is not a criminal court case, nor should it be compared to one. You've continually and it seems to me, deliberately, misunderstood this. it is, as USADA observes in the reasoned decision, more comparable to a professional misonduct charge. Those are the kinds of standards of evidence, and levels of proof that we have to look to.

The legitimate process (and it is legitimate) had a clear provision for an independent panel to assess the evidence, with the ability of the persons being investigated to choose members of the panel. Armstrong chose not to engage in the process. There's not much more one can say about that. He deliberately chose not to take up his right to challenge the evidence. The rules are pretty clear about what happens in this case. The rules which, as we've already seen, are legitimate.

All that remains now is for the UCI is accept the outcome. Once they do, and I can't see that they cannot, then this particular case is all but over.

Then, hopefully we can deal with the other remaining investigations, and start on a proper process of reform of professional cycling so that we don't get problems of this scale - we'll never eliminate cheating entirely of course - ever again.

 

[Red Light]

Strange - its part of the reasoned argument that USADA submitted. If it is as clear cut why did LA not use this as a technicality to excuse the evidence?

How could he? At the time he decided not to contest nobody knew what was in the evidence file (not even USADA) including their ignoring Article 17.

 

[Red Light]

"Where no hearing occurs, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall submit to the Persons described
in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the action taken."
Organisation with Rights Management Responsibility = USADA (set forth in the Reasoned Argument)
Result: reasoned decision / argument (posts passim, ad nauseam)

First you missed out the bit that refers to your claim that there is no option to plead no contest. If you go back and read Article 8.3 it starts:

​

The right to a hearing may be waived either expressly or by the Athlete’s or other Person’s failure to challenge an Anti-Doping Organization’s assertion that an anti-doping rule violation has occurred within the specific time period provided in the Anti-Doping Organization’s rules.​

​

Second, as I said, the process is flawed in allowing the prosecutor to then be the judge and jury in the case of no contest. It being in the rules doesn't make it any less flawed.

 

[Red Light]

RL
So is the SoL thing your last remaining argument?
Would you give him back his titles if that could, hypothetically speaking of course, be shown still to be valid ?

No, its just another on top of using disbarred evidence (the 1999 retests), missing evidence where its in favour of the defendant (e.g. the Betsy Andreu incident), the ignoring of Article 17, the use of sweetheart deals for testimony, the process allowing USADA to be investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. I would take the attitude that has been taken elsewhere when the process is faulty and against basic Human Rights (Article 6 if he had been based in Europe). And that is to throw the case out even if it means a guilty man walking free. Otherwise you are condoning the slippery slope to where the end justifies the means. And history tells us that every time that happens, we later regret it.

 

[DogTired]

New, New Improved Lance Armstrong Thread anyone?

Is it possible to get any better than this?

 

[Red Light]

Space Corps Directive 196156 anyone?

Judge Tygart anyone?

 

[Finn]

Is it possible to get any better than this?

yes.... " The New 'Lance Armstrong Disproved' Thread

.... coat already on ....

 

[totallyfixed]

Judge Tygart anyone?

I have to profess to a memory lapse here, I don't actually remember LA wearing that helmet.

 

[Red Light]

I have to profess to a memory lapse here, I don't actually remember LA wearing that helmet.

No, that's Judge Travis Dredd, LA is the one in the room with the gun.

 

[just jim]

No, its just another on top of using disbarred evidence (the 1999 retests), missing evidence where its in favour of the defendant (e.g. the Betsy Andreu incident), the ignoring of Article 17, the use of sweetheart deals for testimony, the process allowing USADA to be investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. I would take the attitude that has been taken elsewhere when the process is faulty and against basic Human Rights (Article 6 if he had been based in Europe). And that is to throw the case out even if it means a guilty man walking free. Otherwise you are condoning the slippery slope to where the end justifies the means. And history tells us that every time that happens, we later regret it.

"The Betsy Andreau incident"? A crude, but skewed and condescending perspective. And yes, I have taken you off my ignore list ( a short list I might add).


Edited by Mods

 

[Oldspice]

Really?

Why not - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19116592

Just one and that was during the olympics out of a shed load of chaps doing racing for a living.

 

[just jim]

Christ on a bike!