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

[rich p]

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.

Eh? I got bored before the end.
Email Lance's lawyers sharpish. You could be on an earner.

 

[Red Light]

Eh? I got bored before the end.

You mean enough is enough and you've got better things to do with your life? A certain confirmation that you know you are wrong

Email Lance's lawyers sharpish. You could be on an earner.

In case you missed it, he's not fighting it so what would be the use?

 

[rich p]

You mean enough is enough and you've got better things to do with your life? A certain confirmation that you know you are wrong



In case you missed it, he's not fighting it so what would be the use?

In case you missed it, he's not fighting it because he doesn't want the evidence exposed to the general public who would see him for the fraud that he is.
Do you honestly believe if it was a simple as that he and his lawyers wouldn't have pointed it out to Judge Sparks?
Such incroyable naiivety leads me to believe that you are only trolling. Tara.

 

[tigger]

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.

[/url]

Depends how you interpret the small print. Read your quote again. Provided an action is commenced within eight years of the offence taking place then what's to say you cannot look at earlier periods of that offence? Nothing. It's open to interpretation. This was a long standing, systematic violation.

Go play with the kids troll

 

[Red Light]

In case you missed it, he's not fighting it because he doesn't want the evidence exposed to the general public who would see him for the fraud that he is.
Do you honestly believe if it was a simple as that he and his lawyers wouldn't have pointed it out to Judge Sparks?
Such incroyable naiivety leads me to believe that you are only trolling. Tara.

So you don't know the answer and you missed the fact that Sparks declined to engage in how USADA's procedures were run other than to say it had to stick to them. The pre-arbitration hearing is where they would have to raise it but of course if you are not taking part in the arbitration that's rather difficult to do. I think the incroyable naivety is on your part combined with a level of bluster that hides a lack of knowledge. Never mind, tara and don't slam the door on your way out.

 

[Red Light]

Depends how you interpret the small print. Read your quote again. Provided an action is commenced within eight years of the offence taking place then what's to say you cannot look at earlier periods of that offence? Nothing. It's open to interpretation. This was a long standing, systematic violation.

Go play with the kids troll

What small print?

 

[Scoosh]

This subject has been covered in other threads - and this one is going round in circles, with the danger that it might lead to abuse.

This thread is now closed.