USADA or UCI.........cycling's governing body?

[User269]

Given that USADA appear to have set a precedent in ignoring both Habeas Corpus and the Statute of Limitations, in addition to asserting control over cycle sport outside of the USA, I'm wondering where they've been all these years while UCI have apparently been in charge of regulating cycle sport?
Don't worry if you don't know the answer, the lawyers don't seem to know either.

 

[albion]

It is all quite baffling.

I think the Americans can do what they want with Armstrong but surely it is the UCI who has sway on those caught doping but doing a USADA deal.
The accusations of UCI corruption also have to be tackled but that would no doubt also bring about allegations of USADA corruption.

 

[yello]

Your boy got busted. Just suck it up will you.

 

[festival]

The USDA have followed the rules agreed by all parties involved in world sport that have signed up to the WADA code of conduct. Don't make the mistake of believing what is said by the Armstrong crowd. Just because someone says something loud enough and forceful enough, don't make it right.
There is some debate over jurisdiction and it will need to be ratified by the UCI but they have done their job correctly.
E.g. In the small print it states clearly the statute of limitations can be extended if a case is within the time limit but goes back beyond the cut off date.
As for Habeas Corpus, this is another red herring and not relevant as the case now stands

 

[albion]

As said it is an awful situation for cycling

It almost feels like UCI is now totally powerless.
Can it disband and how can it reform?

 

[ufkacbln]

You have to realise that questioning the USADA and it's actions is very very naughty

 

[yello]

You have to realise that making ludicrous statements is likely to get you ridiculed.

Habeas corpus and statute of limitations? Does the OP even know what they are talking about?

 

[marinyork]

USADA is not incharge of cycling, it does what it says on the tin.

It's not just about cycling, it's for various other things. Given the previous drug testing regimes in cycling and particularly track and field in the US that were corrupt and incompetent it's a huge improvement on what went before. If you think otherwise I seriously urge you to have a read about doping in athletics.

 

[Noodley]

Probably the mosy stupid thread opener ever in Racing on CycleChat?

And that takes some doing, given the utter bilge that has been written recently...

 

[Smokin Joe]

Probably the mosy stupid thread opener ever in Racing on CycleChat?

And that takes some doing, given the utter bilge that has been written recently...

The fanboys will clutch at any last straw. Wait till they discover someone on USADA reads the Dailt Mail

 

[Red Light]

E.g. In the small print it states clearly the statute of limitations can be extended if a case is within the time limit but goes back beyond the cut off date.

Can you provide a link to that small print? I looked through the WADA Code and could not spot it. Its not in Article 17 which is the Statute of LImitations Clause.

 

[Smokin Joe]

Can you provide a link to that small print? I looked through the WADA Code and could not spot it. Its not in Article 17 which is the Statute of LImitations Clause.

Doesn't the Statute of Limitations apply only to the US legal system, and not to a sports disciplinary body?

 

[Red Light]

Doesn't the Statute of Limitations apply only to the US legal system, and not to a sports disciplinary body?

Nope. Article 17 of the WADA Code says:

ARTICLE 17: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.


I've not spotted any small print in the Code that allows the 8 years to be extended.

I did find the following in another WADA document though:

The statute of limitations adopted in the Code was agreed following lengthy negotiations between the various parties (both public and private) responsible for enforcing the Code and, therefore, WADA is not entitled to reconsider the statute of limitations in isolation and on its own initiative.
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...electedIssuesRelatedtoAntiDoping_20090617.pdf

 

[rich p]

Nope. Article 17 of the WADA Code says:

ARTICLE 17: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.


I've not spotted any small print in the Code that allows the 8 years to be extended.

I'm not willing to trawl through the small print as I'm guessing that LA's lawyers would have been ahead of even such a legal eagle like yourself if it were that simple. Suffice to say that they have gone back further and any bollix re-interpretation by you won't chanbe the fact that Armstrong has tantamount fessed up to doping.
FWIW, I have read somewhere that the usual limitations don't apply as it involves drug-trafficking as well as systematic supply.

 

[Red Light]

I'm not willing to trawl through the small print as I'm guessing that LA's lawyers would have been ahead of even such a legal eagle like yourself if it were that simple. Suffice to say that they have gone back further and any bollix re-interpretation by you won't chanbe the fact that Armstrong has tantamount fessed up to doping.
FWIW, I have read somewhere that the usual limitations don't apply as it involves drug-trafficking as well as systematic supply.

So there is no small print (after all as per USADA v Armstrong your failure to address the point is tantamount to admitting the smalll print doesn't exist )

There is within the US legal system an arrangement for conspiracy which says for ongoing overt conspiracies, the statute of limitations starts with the last act of the series. But as Chuffy and others very pointedly kept reminding us in another thread, USADA is not a court of law and therefore the rules there do not apply. In which case its just the WADA Code which is very clear, simple and specific that the Statute of Limitations is 8 years period.