BREAKING: UCI to issue statement re Lance on Monday

Agreed. So where does this stand for companies seeking repayment of bonuses?

Bad Hammy wrote:

Agreed. So where does this stand for companies seeking repayment of bonuses?

I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that the SCA deal was final. Sponsors could probably demand some money back but considering how many people are still supporting LA and his foundation, it's probably best for Nike, Trek etc to not sue.

Nutella1 wrote:

What will happen Monday:

1. Lance gets banned for life

2. Lance will have all titles removed from 1999, these titles will not be awarded to someone else

3. UCI president Pat McQuaid will step down

There is no room for speculation. This is what will happen.

1 and 2 already happened.

3 will never happen, and cycling will remain an Olympic sports. Why? Because the Armstrong situation is a U.S. only claim. No other country has to comply with decisions passed down my a non-profit located in the U.S. They have no international jurisdiction.

Yawny wrote:

1 and 2 already happened.

3 will never happen, and cycling will remain an Olympic sports. Why? Because the Armstrong situation is a U.S. only claim. No other country has to comply with decisions passed down my a non-profit located in the U.S. They have no international jurisdiction.

To clarify: 1 UCI will confirm the ban and 2 no this has not happened yet. He is still in the official results.

3 will happen, UCI is in deep trouble. They have a 100k$ donation from LA and a 500k$ donation from Nike. They can't continue like nothing happened.

The Armstrong situation is not US only. UCI effectively altered results of one decade by covering up for LA's positive tests and giving him advanced notice. IOC is well aware of this and also pissed that Vino won the gold medal in London.

What I could see is that they only remove mens road cycling from the Olympics and leave track as well as all womens cycling.

Anyway, this won't happen because Pat McQuaid will step down.

Assuming UCI concurs with USADA on Monday, what's the likelihood they'll actually do anything to actually continue the momentum; like implementing a truth and reconciliation commission, changing the testing protocols to be stricter with regards to how often and when they test, aggressively following up on leads such as the Italian police investigation currently underway that details (via wire taps, financial records, etc.) how Ferrari worked with dozens of riders on multiple teams.

Will this really change anything, or is it business as usual once the axe falls on Lance Monday?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gazzetta-reveal-police-taps-of-dr-ferrari-and-michele-scarponi

I don't think Nike or Trek will sue him. Those companies benefited just as much from the sponsorship as he did. He has been a major contributor to Trek's success. Nike would be Nike without him, but I'm sure they made millions from selling Livestrong crap.

I am quoting from the cyclingnews forum:

UCI's hand was forced. Verbruggen had said decision will be next friday. Rabobank pulled out which was a shock and before other sponsors joined just like the avalanche that followed the Nike pull out, they had to make an announcement. They know the sponsors are all waiting for monday, if they fight it, there will be an avalanche. if they skirt around, there will be an avalanche, i am predicting some major changes. The pocket is where it bites the most and Rabobank move was bad

I didn't think about it that way - UCI had to act fast with all the sponsors dropping off - not only off of Lance but also other teams.

Good point and reassures what I said. UCI will be restructured - with a new president.

From Cycling News:

McQuaid’s predecessor Hein Verbruggen has been somewhat less circumspect, telling De Telegraaf in a text message that: “All I can say is that there are many, many stories and suspicions, but no trace of PROOF. There is none. LA [Armstrong] never tested positive, not even by USADA.”

As well as formally accepting or rejecting USADA’s Armstrong findings, the UCI will also reveal whether or not it accepts the reduced six-month bans USADA handed to Christian Vande Velde, David Zabriskie, Tom Danielson, George Hincapie, Michael Barry and Levi Leipheimer in return for their testimony on the doping programme operated at US Postal.

Some folks may be in for a surprise.

coach d wrote:

the UCI will also reveal whether or not it accepts the reduced six-month bans USADA handed to Christian Vande Velde, David Zabriskie, Tom Danielson, George Hincapie, Michael Barry and Levi Leipheimer in return for their testimony on the doping programme operated at US Postal.

I hope they don't. 6 months is a joke, especially considering that those months are September to February. Many prestigious bike races during that time of the year. ;)

Cycling's not my sport, but I don't see why McQuaid personally has an incentive to settle. If he gives in, I would think there would be a permanent cloud of suspicion. If he appeals to CAS, he might lose, but he could always claim that there was no real case because there was no real physical evidence.

From the second Lance did not contest before USADA, I assumed that he was working in concert with UCI and the endgame would get played out in the appeal process once USADA was forced to throw all of its cards on the table.

But those people who signed afidavits admitted actual guilt and could now be getting set up to be seriously burned.

coach d wrote:

Cycling's not my sport, but I don't see why McQuaid personally has an incentive to settle. If he gives in, I would think there would be a permanent cloud of suspicion. If he appeals to CAS, he might lose, but he could always claim that there was no real case because there was no real physical evidence.

From the second Lance did not contest before USADA, I assumed that he was working in concert with UCI and the endgame would get played out in the appeal process once USADA was forced to throw all of its cards on the table.

But those people who signed afidavits admitted actual guilt and could now be getting set up to be seriously burned.

I don't think you understand the legal implications. If UCI appeals then Lance will have to give testimony. This is what he wanted to avoid when he decided to not fight the USADA charges. Also, if that would happen, a lot more sponsors would leave. It would be a clear message from UCI that they don't care about a clean sport.

It will not happen.

Nutella1 wrote: I don't think you understand the legal implications. If UCI appeals then Lance will have to give testimony. This is what he wanted to avoid when he decided to not fight the USADA charges. Also, if that would happen, a lot more sponsors would leave. It would be a clear message from UCI that they don't care about a clean sport.

It will not happen.

No, you don't quite get the legal implications. USADA only offers arbitration under their set of rules, not the same as real legal rules.

The UCI has stated it would not appeal the USADA decision to CAS (Court of Arbitration of Sports). But, UCI wants definitive proof. In other words, how are passed test correlated with contradictory testimony made by riders. The USADA report (reasoned decision) does not correlate the testimony with testing results.

The UCI has every reason to bounce the whole thing back to USADA and demand that a reasoned decision that includes a hardcore discussion about the passed testing be provided. The USADA would be forced to provide a more definitive report.

The major issue with the USADA report are the off-season short bans given to the riders testifying against Armstrong. This was a mistake by USADA. The bans for the testifying riders should have had some real teeth. One rider gets a lifetime ban for not admitting anything. Those who admit something illegal get off scot-free.

A nightmare for the USADA is, the UCI could accept the ban on Armstrong and undercut the USADA by giving equal bans to the testifying riders. Lifetime bans for all of them.

If all the riders get lifetime bans expect all hell to break loose. The USADA would have failed to protect the admitted cheaters, after promising them they would.

The UCI has every reason to bounce the whole thing back to USADA and demand that a reasoned decision that includes a hardcore discussion about the passed testing be provided.

I respectfully disagree.

Technically, I think you are right -- the UCI would be right to make such a request.

However I think the UCI response will be based more on political/public image considerations than on technical/ procedural ones. The last thing the UCI needs is to be seen as blocking USADA/the anti-doping cause, and for this affair to drag out any longer than it has.

With even Nike pulling the plug, the UCI has little choice but to follow the major sponsors. Otherwise they look like they're holding out. And there is always the risk that if USADA provides a more definitive report, there will be even more dirt on the UCI in it for good measure.

I think the UCI therefore has every reason to want to bury this affair as quickly as possible and hope that everyone forgets about the whole thing.

As for undercutting USADA and giving lifetime bans to the other riders, it's a possibility but I seriously doubt the UCI has the balls to do such a thing.

The UCI will not accept the "reasoned decision" as passed down by the USADA. They will either demand a more bulletproof decision, or counter with an alternative term of bans.

The USADA created the mess. Their report does not address passed tests. They also offered exceptionally watered-down bans to the accusers.

Accepting the USADA report as-is is a losing situation.

Something interesting is going to come down from the UCI. I think it will be demand more complete proof, or institute hard bans and the accusers.

The most interesting outcome of the USADA mess is that they have pretty much come out as stating, drug testing in sports is incapable of catching cheaters.

It seems you misunderstand a great deal. A reasoned decision explains why USADA sanctioned Lance. It is not required to be complete or bulletproof.

The UCI has two choices: accept the decision, or appeal to the CAS. They cannot send it back to USADA, requiring more evidence. But they can require USADA to present it's case in full in the form of an arbitration (which Lance waived).

The UCI also has the same right of appeal regarding the reduced sanctions.

Your are also mistaken about the weight and correlation of the passed tests. The decision explains several methods how the riders escaped testing positive. It is addressed in the decision. And there were failed tests: 1 in 1999; 6 more in 1999; 1 in 2001; and an analysis of 2009-2010 blood levels. This is all addressed in the decision. Furthermore testing is not relevant for possession, trafficking, and conspiracy charges. Again if the evidence falls short, the UCI has the right to force a full arbitration, and let the appeals arbitration panel decide. The UCI is not the judge, but only an interested party.

You don't understand... wrote:

The most interesting outcome of the USADA mess is that they have pretty much come out as stating, drug testing in sports is incapable of catching cheaters.

Not quite. Apparently USADA believes Lance had positives in '99 and '01 that were allowed to slip through. He should have been a known druggie in 1999 with his positive during the Tour.

Tor wrote:

You don't understand... wrote:

The most interesting outcome of the USADA mess is that they have pretty much come out as stating, drug testing in sports is incapable of catching cheaters.

Not quite. Apparently USADA believes Lance had positives in '99 and '01 that were allowed to slip through. He should have been a known druggie in 1999 with his positive during the Tour.

Not quite, the "positives" were samples the lab lost track of. Samples lost track of become worthless in all industries relying on approval of the samples to regulatory agencies. They call this chain-of-custody. The chain was broken, by the responsible lab.

Keep trying Tygart. Your report is sloppy. Lawyers in a real court of law would easily destroy it. Luckily, you have arbitration to protect your incompletely documented reasoned decision.

Bad Hammy wrote:

Agreed. So where does this stand for companies seeking repayment of bonuses?

The question should be:

When can the public expect their checks from the sponsors who made millions using Lance's image to sell their product?