Should Lance appeal the UCI decision?

  1. Polish

    offline
    Member

    The Chicago Trib is reporting that the UCI advised Lance on 12/6 that he will be stripped of all results since 8/98, and has 21 days to appeal.

    The IOC is awaiting Lance's decision before stripping his Olympic Medal.

    So should Lance appeal?

    Hell Yeah IMO. CAS will Right the Wrong that has been smeared onto Lance. I can understand Lance not wanting to take part in any bogus USADA StarChamber WitchHunt hearing - but this is CAS, this is official.

    Appeal, Lance, Appeal!
    NO GIFTS!

    C'mon, the UCI and IOC want Lance to appeal. Save Cycling.

    Posted 5 months ago

  2. Entheo

    offline
    Member

    Posted 5 months ago

  3. 79pmooney

    offline
    Member

    I'm no lawyer, but won't the U.S. District Court's decision to make the documents sought by whistle blowers public potentially be detrimental to LA if he were to appeal as UCI would have access to those documents? (I don't know what those documents are, but both the US Post Master and Floyd Landis requested them.)

    Actually Polish, I agree with you here. LA should appeal. Let's hear from everyone under oath. Let's get it all on the table. Yes, no gifts.

    Ben

    Posted 5 months ago

  4. flicker

    offline
    Member

    If Lance wasn't found to have dope in his system at the 2000 games how can he be stripped. Could he come out with the ever so popular I doped for X race, but in Y race I was clean, now I will take my 6 month suspension please? Oh yes and keep my results from the Y races.

    Posted 5 months ago

  5. bldrgal

    offline
    Member

    +1 Entheo

    Posted 5 months ago

  6. Keith RIchards

    offline
    Moderator

    The way I see it the UCI is playing it like this.

    Until Lance comes out and says SOMETHING, ANYTHING, pro or con on the issue they are assuming he doped all of the time.

    In my line of work, unless you submit data otherwise the assumption is 100%. If you want us to assume less, show some evidence.

    It is his word versus ours. We like our word. We like where we stand and we like our credibility."--Lance Armstrong.
    Posted 5 months ago

  7. Polish

    offline
    Member

    I would argue Lance should appeal on "Statutes of Limitation" or "Jurisdiction Issues". CAS has a broader viewpoint than a Texan/Fed Judge on those issues as it relates to international sports law. SOL & Jurisdiction are seperate from SSDD. Don't appeal the SSDD, just the other stuff. That other stuff is more important Sports Law precedent imo.

    And what does Lance have to lose? He would have a chance of officially getting his titles back. And if it comes down to lawsuits, being officially recognized a the winner makes all the difference.

    The UCI itself raised issues on the legality of the USDADA process when it went along with them and rubberstamped the ban. It is almost like they were encouraging Lance to appeal. After all, the UCI is concerned with the promotion/profitablity of Pro cycling - and Lance being stripped hurt bad.

    Posted 5 months ago

  8. KidWok

    offline
    Member

    You know...this could be an instance where Armstrong all the sudden becomes the movement for cycling reform's new best friend. He was supposedly in cahoots with UCI right? What if his appeal means he comes forward to say "UCI took my money as payment to hide a positive result", "UCI did give me heads up about surprised drug tests", etc etc. If he spilled the beans in the context of a greater good, it could be the biggest PR turnaround in the history of sporting frauds. Even if it does nothing for his results, it would put UCI on trial in the court of public opinions, which would lead to increased pressure from IOC, WADA, ASO, RAI, and many (probably not all) national cycling federations for an overhaul of UCI management and governance.

    Shuddering at the thought that the sport's biggest fraud could become its saving grace.

    Tai

    http://www.thepeoplescoastclassic.org/
    Posted 5 months ago

  9. watermoccasin

    offline
    Member

    Polish, when the LA thing is finally over the tobacco industry has an opening for a lobbyist. They're looking for someone with your tenacity and ability to obviate the facts.

    Posted 5 months ago

  10. ChinookPass

    offline
    Member

    Lance's only appeal is to those little blonde ladies who remind him of his mother.

    Posted 5 months ago

  11. Polish

    offline
    Member

    Tai, if you want to shudder - how about Lance bribing the UCI to make sure the appeal comes out in his favor? The UCI has never been a fan of the USADA. Win/Win.

    watermoccasin, I voted FOR the Cig Tax out here in Cali. Big Tobacco does not want a hater. Maybe they should hire some USADA guy instead? Maybe they know a few guys over there already wink wink.

    Posted 5 months ago

  12. Orbital

    offline
    Member

    I am actually at a loss how anything further can be applied in the LA matter until the Revue Commission have completed their findings and issued their report and UCI have responded how they intend to deal with it.

    The SOL et al will all form part of the review so how exactly can UCI strip or LA appeal when this has been handed to the greater and good to review!

    Posted 5 months ago

  13. sappie66

    offline
    Member

    +1 Entheo
    +1 79pmooney

    Yes I see the contradiction.

    Posted 5 months ago

  14. 7tdf-SpearofLance

    offline
    Member

    +Polish, +Flicker, +Orbital, ... flambeed hatertots for all the rest coming up with this next batch of documents no doubt, --- but nothing game changing, as usual except the same tiresome arguments. Where is the Bruyneel case? Finished before the end of the year we were told. Looks like another croc job.

    Posted 5 months ago

  15. jpouchet

    offline
    Member

    Appeal and get everything out in the open and on the record. Then, with the facts on the table, let's establish a sporting set of rules, regulations, and test procedures by which we can all agree to use going forward. This retro-active taxation is very much anti-IPO millionaires. Oh sorry, that darn Prop 30 won't get out of my head.

    Posted 5 months ago

  16. jpouchet

    offline
    Member

    Not that I participated in any IPOs this year. Didn't! Not even close.

    And despite a good run of four consecutive podium finishes in my way distant past I, too, was never subjected to USAC, USADA or other agency testing. Yay!

    Posted 5 months ago

Reply

You must log in to post.