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.