UCI shell game

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug29news3

So apparently, the UCI is allowing the national federations of all the
implicated Operacion Puerto riders to conduct the investigations and
decide if they have committed a doping violation.

Sigh, It's all well and good that cycling has become (more) popular I
suppose but back in the day it seems the people who managed to find cycling
we deeply enough interested in it to find out how it worked...

The National Federations are primarily responsible for their riders and it
is their responsibility to discipline them. That is why the UCI is
"allowing" the national federations to do this, it's their job!

The potential conflict of interest you address is also taken care of as the
UCI can appeal the National Federation's decision to the CAS.

The UCI having an interest in riders being clean and the WADA's interest
in riders being dirty are two more points of debate, but hte place of the
national federations and the UCI in disciplinary proceedings is clear.

MagillaGorilla said:

And then McQuaid's going to give a big speech when all is said and done
about how he's disappointed there wasn't better evidence.

Just remember you heard it here first.

Sure nuff. What would you rather they do instead? Seems like if
there are criminal issues, the Guardia is already doing it. What
else would you have done?

-dB

Jonathan D. Proulx said:

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug29news3

So apparently, the UCI is allowing the national federations of all the
implicated Operacion Puerto riders to conduct the investigations and
decide if they have committed a doping violation.

Sigh, It's all well and good that cycling has become (more) popular I
suppose but back in the day it seems the people who managed to find cycling
we deeply enough interested in it to find out how it worked...

The National Federations are primarily responsible for their riders and it
is their responsibility to discipline them. That is why the UCI is
"allowing" the national federations to do this, it's their job!

The problem is that many of the national federations are "doper"
federations (or at least they are doper-friendly). If the UCI passes
the buck back to the nationals, then all of his rhetoric for the past
few months will be all BS.

We may as well give-up. No one wants to see anything through to the
true end, because the truth is an ugly one.

Quoted message said:

Jonathan D. Proulx said:

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug29news3

So apparently, the UCI is allowing the national federations of all the
implicated Operacion Puerto riders to conduct the investigations and
decide if they have committed a doping violation.

Sigh, It's all well and good that cycling has become (more) popular I
suppose but back in the day it seems the people who managed to find cycling
we deeply enough interested in it to find out how it worked...

The National Federations are primarily responsible for their riders and it
is their responsibility to discipline them. That is why the UCI is
"allowing" the national federations to do this, it's their job!

The problem is that many of the national federations are "doper"
federations (or at least they are doper-friendly). If the UCI passes
the buck back to the nationals, then all of his rhetoric for the past
few months will be all BS.

dumbass,

its not like magilla discovered some huge conflict of interest no one
else imagined.

this certainly was happening in the past, where some federations were
lenient on their stars and other national federations came down hard.

the WADA code is supposed to be the unifying element that all the
federations agree on. if the italian federation goes easy on basso it
will raise the question of whether they truly are WADA compliant.

if they want to be part of the UCI, and the olympics they are bound by
certain guidelines.

Quoted message said:

The problem is that many of the national federations are "doper"
federations (or at least they are doper-friendly). If the UCI passes
the buck back to the nationals, then all of his rhetoric for the past
few months will be all BS.

That is a problem (dope friendly federations East Germany anyone?), there
are many problems. But the point is the national federations have the
first say not the last.

If they don't act the way the UCI wants them to the UCI has an appeal. The
basic assertion that the UCI is arbitrarily giving up responsibility to the
National Federations is false. The decision is neither a decision or
arbitrary it's in the rules and must be followed, maybe it suck and needs
to be changed but you can't do that in the middle of a proceeding. More
importantly the UCI isn't giving anything up, if the national federation
doesn't do the right thing the the UCI has the opportunity to take it up,
if the pass on that then they've abdicated, but htey haven't done so (yet).

There's plenty of corruption and conspiracy in international sport
governance, there's no need to make up any more...

-Jon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jonathan D. Proulx said:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug29news3
>
>So apparently, the UCI is allowing the national federations of all the
>implicated Operacion Puerto riders to conduct the investigations and
>decide if they have committed a doping violation.

Sigh, It's all well and good that cycling has become (more) popular I
suppose but back in the day it seems the people who managed to find cycling
we deeply enough interested in it to find out how it worked...

The National Federations are primarily responsible for their riders and it
is their responsibility to discipline them. That is why the UCI is
"allowing" the national federations to do this, it's their job!

The problem is that many of the national federations are "doper"
federations (or at least they are doper-friendly). If the UCI passes
the buck back to the nationals, then all of his rhetoric for the past
few months will be all BS.

dumbass,

its not like magilla discovered some huge conflict of interest no one
else imagined.

this certainly was happening in the past, where some federations were
lenient on their stars and other national federations came down hard.

the WADA code is supposed to be the unifying element that all the
federations agree on. if the italian federation goes easy on basso it
will raise the question of whether they truly are WADA compliant.

if they want to be part of the UCI, and the olympics they are bound by
certain guidelines.

WADA isn't involved in any of the Operacion Puerto cases. Therefore,
there is no unifying factor.

What are you talking about when you say "If the italian federation goes
easy on Basso.."...the Italian federation and USAC and all the national
federations will say there is not enough proof and will dismiss all
these allegations. And nobody with any authority to alter that decision
will question that finding.

There is no opportunity for a CAS appeal (unless it's by the rider who
is sanctioned). The UCI doesn't get to appeal anything.

Thanks,

Magilla

Jonathan D. Proulx said:

Quoted message said:

The problem is that many of the national federations are "doper"
federations (or at least they are doper-friendly). If the UCI passes
the buck back to the nationals, then all of his rhetoric for the past
few months will be all BS.

That is a problem (dope friendly federations East Germany anyone?), there
are many problems. But the point is the national federations have the
first say not the last.

If they don't act the way the UCI wants them to the UCI has an appeal. The
basic assertion that the UCI is arbitrarily giving up responsibility to the
National Federations is false. The decision is neither a decision or
arbitrary it's in the rules and must be followed, maybe it suck and needs
to be changed but you can't do that in the middle of a proceeding. More
importantly the UCI isn't giving anything up, if the national federation
doesn't do the right thing the the UCI has the opportunity to take it up,
if the pass on that then they've abdicated, but htey haven't done so (yet).

There's plenty of corruption and conspiracy in international sport
governance, there's no need to make up any more...

-Jon

The UCI cannot appeal because it's not a WADA sanction. And stop with
this [censored] that the UCI is interested in doing the right thing. You
lose credibility when you say stuff like that.

Thanks,

Magilla

dbrower said:

MagillaGorilla said:

And then McQuaid's going to give a big speech when all is said and done
about how he's disappointed there wasn't better evidence.

Just remember you heard it here first.

Sure nuff. What would you rather they do instead? Seems like if
there are criminal issues, the Guardia is already doing it. What
else would you have done?

-dB

All the cases should be referred to WADA, not the national governing
bodies. WADA exists because the national governing bodies were seen as
these massive conflicts of interest.

Google "Wade Exum" if you need a history lesson.

Thanks,

Magilla

MagillaGorilla said:

What are you talking about when you say "If the italian federation goes
easy on Basso.."...the Italian federation and USAC and all the national
federations will say there is not enough proof and will dismiss all
these allegations. And nobody with any authority to alter that decision
will question that finding.

There is no opportunity for a CAS appeal (unless it's by the rider who
is sanctioned). The UCI doesn't get to appeal anything.

dumbass,

if WADA observes that the basso case isn't handled according to the
code it can appeal to CAS.

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=367

WADA closely monitors doping cases and has the right to appeal to the
Court of Arbitration for Sport for cases under the jurisdiction of
organizations who have implemented the Code.

obviously if there isn't sufficient evidence it will be hard to make a
case against basso since he did not test positive, admit to doping or
get caught with doping products. right now the case apparently hinges
on the real name of basso's dog.

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla said:

What are you talking about when you say "If the italian federation goes
easy on Basso.."...the Italian federation and USAC and all the national
federations will say there is not enough proof and will dismiss all
these allegations. And nobody with any authority to alter that decision
will question that finding.

There is no opportunity for a CAS appeal (unless it's by the rider who
is sanctioned). The UCI doesn't get to appeal anything.

dumbass,

if WADA observes that the basso case isn't handled according to the
code it can appeal to CAS.

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=367

WADA closely monitors doping cases and has the right to appeal to the
Court of Arbitration for Sport for cases under the jurisdiction of
organizations who have implemented the Code.

obviously if there isn't sufficient evidence it will be hard to make a
case against basso since he did not test positive, admit to doping or
get caught with doping products. right now the case apparently hinges
on the real name of basso's dog.

WADA has no access to the documents in question and is not a party to
the investigation that will take place. You cited a code that only
applies to doping cases that come before WADA.

WADA has no right to appeal. The only way for these cases to come
before WADA is if the national federations refer the case to them as a
doping case if they determine there is enough evidence. They won't do
that.

Don't question me again.

Magilla

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug29news3

Maybe the German federation will find Ullrich guilty though because the
Germans still have a self-persecutorial complex because of their
Holocaust history. So they tend to act overly-righteous (i.e. making it
illegal to give the Nazi salute or "insult" another's religion).

I thought Ullrich had a Swiss cycling license...?

~bob

bob sullivan said:

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug29news3

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe the German federation will find Ullrich guilty though because
the Germans still have a self-persecutorial complex because of their
Holocaust history. So they tend to act overly-righteous (i.e. making
it illegal to give the Nazi salute or "insult" another's religion).

I thought Ullrich had a Swiss cycling license...?

~bob

Right, he has a Swiss license. So he falls under the jurisdiction of
both federations, though the Swiss federation would have superseding
jurisdiction.

So, yeah, the Swiss would investigate. They're very good at hiding the
money that the Germans stole from the Jews during the Holocaust. So
they will protect their cycling assets with equal SLEIGHT* of hand.

Magilla

* Better, Mikey?

MagillaGorilla said:

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla said:

What are you talking about when you say "If the italian federation goes
easy on Basso.."...the Italian federation and USAC and all the national
federations will say there is not enough proof and will dismiss all
these allegations. And nobody with any authority to alter that decision
will question that finding.

There is no opportunity for a CAS appeal (unless it's by the rider who
is sanctioned). The UCI doesn't get to appeal anything.

dumbass,

if WADA observes that the basso case isn't handled according to the
code it can appeal to CAS.

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=367

WADA closely monitors doping cases and has the right to appeal to the
Court of Arbitration for Sport for cases under the jurisdiction of
organizations who have implemented the Code.

obviously if there isn't sufficient evidence it will be hard to make a
case against basso since he did not test positive, admit to doping or
get caught with doping products. right now the case apparently hinges
on the real name of basso's dog.

WADA has no access to the documents in question and is not a party to
the investigation that will take place. You cited a code that only
applies to doping cases that come before WADA.

WADA has no right to appeal. The only way for these cases to come
before WADA is if the national federations refer the case to them as a
doping case if they determine there is enough evidence. They won't do
that.

Don't question me again.

You're doing what a lawyer would call court-shopping.
With no positive test and just Basso's dog's name to
go on, you still want the case to be referred to WADA
even though it doesn't meet the standards for evidence
to refer to WADA that have been previously agreed on.
If Basso was smart enough not to have Fuentes sending
him faxes like Haven's shopping list, then maybe he
should get off. It remains to be seen if Ullrich and
dumbass Pevenage were that crafty.

I'm sure [censored] Pound wants it to be referred to WADA
too. That proves nothing. [censored] Pound would have sent
John Mark Karr to the chair first and let his next of kin
appeal to CAS later.

Ben
Kill them all and let Decanio sort them out.

In article <[email hidden]>,

MagillaGorilla said:

bob sullivan said:

MagillaGorilla said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/aug06/aug29news3

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe the German federation will find Ullrich guilty though because
the Germans still have a self-persecutorial complex because of their
Holocaust history. So they tend to act overly-righteous (i.e. making
it illegal to give the Nazi salute or "insult" another's religion).

I thought Ullrich had a Swiss cycling license...?

~bob

Right, he has a Swiss license. So he falls under the jurisdiction of
both federations, though the Swiss federation would have superseding
jurisdiction.

So, yeah, the Swiss would investigate. They're very good at hiding the
money that the Germans stole from the Jews during the Holocaust. So
they will protect their cycling assets with equal SLEIGHT* of hand.

Magilla

* Better, Mikey?

Yes. You're welcome. I'm happy just spreading sweetness
and light.

--
Michael Press

in message <[email hidden]>, MagillaGorilla

(') said:

dbrower said:

MagillaGorilla said:

And then McQuaid's going to give a big speech when all is said and
done about how he's disappointed there wasn't better evidence.

Just remember you heard it here first.

Sure nuff. What would you rather they do instead? Seems like if
there are criminal issues, the Guardia is already doing it. What
else would you have done?

All the cases should be referred to WADA, not the national governing
bodies. WADA exists because the national governing bodies were seen as
these massive conflicts of interest.

WADA has a still more massive conflict of interest. It is in WADA's
interest to have a really major headline grabbing 'victory' in the 'war
against drugs'. WADA has no interest whatever in the continuation of
professional cycling as a sport, since WADA is an offshoot of the IOC
whose primary focus is still track and field. And WADA is headed by an
attention seeking self-publicist with little obvious respect for
evidence or for due process.

It is in WADA's interest to find all cyclists guilty irrespective of the
evidence. That is not in cycling's interest. Where the evidence exists
beyond reasonable doubt, cyclists should of course be punished. But in
the cases of Ullrich and Basso, and all the other alleged customers of
Fuentes, this has not yet been demonstrated.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

The Conservative Party now has the support of a smaller proportion of
the electorate in Scotland than Sinn Fein have in Northern Ireland.

in message <[email hidden]>, MagillaGorilla

(') said:

The UCI cannot appeal because it's not a WADA sanction. And stop with
this [censored] that the UCI is interested in doing the right thing. You
lose credibility when you say stuff like that.

Pot, meet kettle.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; This email may contain confidential or otherwise privileged
;; information, though, quite frankly, if you're not the intended
;; recipient and you've got nothing better to do than read other
;; folks' emails then I'm glad to have brightened up your sad little
;; life a tiny bit.

Jonathan D. Proulx said:

Quoted message said:

The problem is that many of the national federations are "doper"
federations (or at least they are doper-friendly). If the UCI passes
the buck back to the nationals, then all of his rhetoric for the past
few months will be all BS.

That is a problem (dope friendly federations East Germany anyone?), there
are many problems. But the point is the national federations have the
first say not the last.

If they don't act the way the UCI wants them to the UCI has an appeal. The
basic assertion that the UCI is arbitrarily giving up responsibility to the
National Federations is false. The decision is neither a decision or
arbitrary it's in the rules and must be followed, maybe it suck and needs
to be changed but you can't do that in the middle of a proceeding. More
importantly the UCI isn't giving anything up, if the national federation
doesn't do the right thing the the UCI has the opportunity to take it up,
if the pass on that then they've abdicated, but htey haven't done so (yet).

There's plenty of corruption and conspiracy in international sport
governance, there's no need to make up any more...

-Jon

Trust me, this will "die on the vine".

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla said:

Quoted message said:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

>What are you talking about when you say "If the italian federation goes
>easy on Basso.."...the Italian federation and USAC and all the national
>federations will say there is not enough proof and will dismiss all
>these allegations. And nobody with any authority to alter that decision
>will question that finding.
>
>There is no opportunity for a CAS appeal (unless it's by the rider who
>is sanctioned). The UCI doesn't get to appeal anything.

dumbass,

if WADA observes that the basso case isn't handled according to the
code it can appeal to CAS.

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=367

WADA closely monitors doping cases and has the right to appeal to the
Court of Arbitration for Sport for cases under the jurisdiction of
organizations who have implemented the Code.

obviously if there isn't sufficient evidence it will be hard to make a
case against basso since he did not test positive, admit to doping or
get caught with doping products. right now the case apparently hinges
on the real name of basso's dog.

WADA has no access to the documents in question and is not a party to
the investigation that will take place. You cited a code that only
applies to doping cases that come before WADA.

WADA has no right to appeal. The only way for these cases to come
before WADA is if the national federations refer the case to them as a
doping case if they determine there is enough evidence. They won't do
that.

Don't question me again.

You're doing what a lawyer would call court-shopping.
With no positive test and just Basso's dog's name to
go on, you still want the case to be referred to WADA
even though it doesn't meet the standards for evidence
to refer to WADA that have been previously agreed on.
If Basso was smart enough not to have Fuentes sending
him faxes like Haven's shopping list, then maybe he
should get off. It remains to be seen if Ullrich and
dumbass Pevenage were that crafty.

I'm sure [censored] Pound wants it to be referred to WADA
too. That proves nothing. [censored] Pound would have sent
John Mark Karr to the chair first and let his next of kin
appeal to CAS later.

Ben
Kill them all and let Decanio sort them out.

Dumbass,

You subpoena other witnesses including Fuentes. You get Fuentes's bank
records and trace the money back to its origin. You ask Fuentes on the
stand WHO that name stands for (and who the other names on the list
stand for). You ask Fuentes who gave him $60,000 on such-and-such a
date. And then it's up to the jury to believe it or not.

Do you think the U.S. federal government and USADA asked softball
questions about Barry Bonds and the track & field scandal? The feds got
a guy in jail for contempt for failing to answer questions about Bonds.

You ask Basso why he withdrew significant funds of money on
such-and-such dates and then you check out his answer with other
witnesses and receipts. How would Basso explain why he can't account
for 60,000 Euros from April through June?

You obviously don't know anything about how to prosecute a case. Maybe
you should join the Italian "prosecution" team.

Magilla

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, MagillaGorilla

(') said:

dbrower said:

MagillaGorilla wrote:

>And then McQuaid's going to give a big speech when all is said and
>done about how he's disappointed there wasn't better evidence.
>
>Just remember you heard it here first.

Sure nuff. What would you rather they do instead? Seems like if
there are criminal issues, the Guardia is already doing it. What
else would you have done?

All the cases should be referred to WADA, not the national governing
bodies. WADA exists because the national governing bodies were seen as
these massive conflicts of interest.

WADA has a still more massive conflict of interest. It is in WADA's
interest to have a really major headline grabbing 'victory' in the 'war
against drugs'. WADA has no interest whatever in the continuation of
professional cycling as a sport, since WADA is an offshoot of the IOC
whose primary focus is still track and field. And WADA is headed by an
attention seeking self-publicist with little obvious respect for
evidence or for due process.

It is in WADA's interest to find all cyclists guilty irrespective of the
evidence. That is not in cycling's interest. Where the evidence exists
beyond reasonable doubt, cyclists should of course be punished. But in
the cases of Ullrich and Basso, and all the other alleged customers of
Fuentes, this has not yet been demonstrated.

All decisions in WADA doping cases are ultimately made by independent
CAS arbitrators, not [censored] Pound. So everyone's continued obsession with
claiming Pound's inflammatory statements have any relevance to the
outcome of any doping case is inaccurate.

[censored] Pound has nothing to do with CAS decisions. NOTHING. It is unclear
why so many people put so much emphasis on his quotes to begin with.
Although in most cases where the evidence is so clear, it probably helps
to employ tactics of distraction.

As to your last paragraph: WADA doesn't find people guilty. CAS
arbitrators do, who have nothing to do with WADA.

Thanks,

Magilla