Stuff to hide?

Celebrate, celebrate, It's time to celebrate tonight: Dance to the Music!

You're such a fan-girl...:)

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Due process?

is being followed. Thank you very much.

not by everyone's definition

True. Not by LA's.

That's what it says. I read that like this: Armstrong's powerful friends have contacted their friends at UCI in an attempt to influence the USADA case.

Armstrong is going to fight this every which way, in the public's eye and behind the scenes. Only one avenue of defense needs to stick, after all.

and of course ME:)

But...he said he wasn't going to fight it. I don't understand now.

Wow, where are all the attack posts?

.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

I haven't studied the various statutes or bylaws determining whether the USADA legally has jurisdiction. But what I find interesting is that the USADA tries to undermine UCI jurisdiction's not based on any legal argument, but only based on assertions that it should have jurisdiction because the UCI is not any good at doing its job. In claiming that it should have jurisdiction over the UCI, the USADA asserts: "The evidence is even stronger that cycling under the management of the UCI has been enmeshed in its own EPO and blood doping era" and "The USPS Doping Conspiracy was going on under the watch of UCI, so of course UCI and the participants in the conspiracy who cheated sport with dangerous performance enhancing drugs to win have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired." Both claims imply that the USADA had jusridiction - and not the UCI - simply because the UCI failed to detect any doping going on during the Tour from 1999-2005.

Such an argument, even if true, however, falls flat for two reasons. First whether a government or agency has jurisdiction over a person or thing is not based on whether that government or agency is effective at doing its job; rather its based on statute (and perhaps some relationship, possibly such in this case, on agencies' bylaws). Even if the UCI was ineffective at uncovering doping during the Tour does not give the USADA jurisdiction any more than it gives the California Highway Patrol jurisdiction over those cyclists. It would be the equivalent of saying that because the Los Angeles Police Department is ineffective at stopping murders stemming from gang violence in Los Angeles, the New York Police Department by law has jurisdiction over all gang-related murders occurring in Los Angeles. So the USADA use of this argument to assert jurisdiction misses the point.

The second problem with the USADA's claim is that it turns its own logic on its head. On the one hand, the USADA claims that that the UCI failed to catch any dopers during the tour from 1999-2005 and therefore does not (and should not) have jurisdiction over those cyclists. Yet, on the other hand, the USADA also claims that it has and had jurisdiction over that same time span. Yet the USADA too failed to catch any dopers (U.S. cyclists at least) over that same period. So if the USADA had jurisdiction over those cyclists, which it contends it did, and yet it also was ineffective in catching any dopers during that time span (2000-2005 at least, since that is when USADA was founded), using USADA's own logic, how can it now assert jurisdiction over them?

Steve Tilford has some thoughts on the topic...





http://stevetilford.com/?p=21069


.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

August 10th....I'm waiting to hear some evidence.

"UCI and the participants in the conspiracy who cheated sport with dangerous performance enhancing drugs to win have a strong incentive to cover up what transpired," USADA CEO Travis Tygart said in a statement.

So now UCI is part of the Armstrong doping conspiracy?!?

That is how crazy people talk.

This may be at the root of their opposition....


"By our count, of the 21 podium finishers at the Tour de France during the period from 1999-2005, only a single rider other than Mr. Armstrong was not implicated in doping by a subsequent investigation. Yet, only a single one of these riders had a positive test with the UCI."

How crazy is THIS?
"Rather unfortunately for the UCI they have also faced scrutiny over donations made by Armstrong to their bank accounts. Armstrong made two donations to the UCI during his racing career. The seven-time Tour de France winner signed a personal cheque for $25,000 in 2002 and then his management company Capital Sports and Entertainment made a second payment of $100,000 in 2005." ~ Cycling News June 14, 2012

"That is how crazy people talk."



So, let me get this straight.


Something like this:


http://deadspin.com/...c-boxing-match-fixed


...is going on at the Olympics, even as we speak, yet it's crazy to think that the UCI might just be *suspect* of collusion and interference, given that we *know* they received large sums of money from Armstrong on at least one occasion?


Who is it that's crazy, again?

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

How were the payments disclosed? Were they open and in public view or did the reporter drop the equivalent of a subpoena on them? If the payments were hidden, then I might raise my eyebrow. If made in the open, than it shows nothing nefarious in and of itself.

It's also still crazy talk and here's why. He's either suggesting that UCI conspired with a multitude of dopers, or that it conspired only with LA and his group. Neither makes any sense.

I love conspiracy theories. I just don't see legs to this one.

So you're suggesting there's some connection with the boxing deal and the Armstrong thing? That's crazy too.

But, there's lots of crazy talk here, and I can't be bothered to respond to it all.

And he also had a lobbyist apply congressional pressure. For claiming he wouldn't fight it, he's putting up quite a fight.

Wonder if he's realized that he's not going to play it like he wants. USADA seems to now be one step ahead of him at every turn.

rollo tomasi

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Or, you know, not.

You're flat-out *saying* it's crazy to think that a national fed might be guilty of corruption, and I'm providing anecdotal evidence to support the idea that maybe - just maybe - when people give large sums of money to sporting feds, and strange things happen to the direct benefit of those "contributing" the money, there might just be something slightly unsavory going on. ...and that this stuff ain't just going on in cycling.

But, yeah, I know.
That's crazy talk.

It's *way* more likely that these types of things are just coincidence, and the best people to investigate these occurrences are clearly the people accused of accepting the (ahem) donations.

Yup.

Makes sense to m...

...well, apparently that makes sense to you.




.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

>So you're suggesting there's some connection with the boxing deal and the Armstrong thing? That's crazy too.

Don't play coy. You know perfectly well he was pointing out another of example of (alleged) corruption within a governing body, not a specific link between the two governing bodies in question.

> I can't be bothered to respond to it all
I don't know, you're off to a pretty good start!