Doper Rides Again

Burt said:

http://doucheblogcycling.blogspot.com/2008/05/i-just-realized.html

"..that Dave Fuentes, the same guy who took a bunch of steriods, kept
racing all jacked up while he appealed and cheated a bunch of dudes out
of money at Superweek, then got banned for two years is now racing for
Harley Davidson."

-------------------------------

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/Fuentes%20AAA%20Decision%20&%20Award.pdf

Fuentes never appealed. He was suspended for 2 years starting March 24,
2004 to March 24, 2006, and all results in between them were cancelled
(see page 10-11, 6.2 and 6.3).

When your results are "cancelled" it means you are DQ'ed.

And that means, as per USCF rules, Fuentes had to pay all that money
back to promoters. It also means, that promoters are obligated to
redistribute the prize money to the amended results where everybody
would move up one place who finished behind Fuentes and thereby receive
prorated prize money.

If Fuentes did not pay back this money and athletes did not receive
prorated prize money, then it means Fuentes did not comply with his
doping ruling and should not be given a racing license

If Fuentes chooses not to pay back that money athletes should request
USA Cycling reimburse them because their officials improperly certified
the results at the time the promoter paid prize money.

In any event, Fuentes did not cheat anyone out of money. USA Cycling
did by their failure to enforce his arbitration ruling.

Thanks,

Magilla

Bill C said:

Guess it depends on where you are. While there are some headaches here
in New England with this occasionally Ne-bra is right on it for USAC,
and people have had permits denied due to failures of this type for
future races. Guess it comes down to how good your local reps are.

If a single promoter were responsible for a big percentage of
the total race entries in New England I think your local reps
would find out very quickly who was in charge.

Of course, things work differently for the East Jesus Cycling
Club, promoter of the East Jesus Industrial Park Crit.

On May 25, 2:40 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Guess it depends on where you are. While there are some headaches here
in New England with this occasionally Ne-bra is right on it for USAC,
and people have had permits denied due to failures of this type for
future races. Guess it comes down to how good your local reps are.

If a single promoter were responsible for a big percentage of
the total race entries in New England I think your local reps
would find out very quickly who was in charge.

Of course, things work differently for the East Jesus Cycling
Club, promoter of the East Jesus Industrial Park Crit.

Could be, but I'd doubt it. We've got politics like anywhere else, but
noone is allowed to run roughshod though one or two are close, and you
could probably guess who they are, and Myerson isn't one of them. I
think that's one of the strengths of the region. We've got so many
people like Alan Atwood, Bill Black, Wade Somers, Mike Norton, etc...
that do a great job and take care of the riders that anyone who
doesn't is gone pretty quick.

Here's a link to a list for this year:
http://ne-bra.org/pages/members/members.asp

It might be the case that they don't have to kiss ass, but knowing
the people running things, and most are Natcoms with a ton of
integrity and dedication to doing things right so even in a worst case
scenario I don't think they'd let [censored] happen.
When USAC got too obnoxious it was no problem to go another direction
because these people believe in doing things the right way, and are
willing to put themselves way out on the line to make it happen.
Bill Black in particular has been incredible and everyone racing here
owes him a huge debt. Never seen anyone bully him, or get him to do
something he thought wasn't right either.
I'm pretty cynical, but my hats off to the folks here, and I believe
they'd do what's right for the racers in almost any case.
Bill C

Bill C said:

On May 25, 2:40 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

Guess it depends on where you are. While there are some headaches here
in New England with this occasionally Ne-bra is right on it for USAC,
and people have had permits denied due to failures of this type for
future races. Guess it comes down to how good your local reps are.

If a single promoter were responsible for a big percentage of
the total race entries in New England I think your local reps
would find out very quickly who was in charge.

Of course, things work differently for the East Jesus Cycling
Club, promoter of the East Jesus Industrial Park Crit.

Could be, but I'd doubt it. We've got politics like anywhere else, but
noone is allowed to run roughshod though one or two are close, and you
could probably guess who they are, and Myerson isn't one of them. I
think that's one of the strengths of the region. We've got so many
people like Alan Atwood, Bill Black, Wade Somers, Mike Norton, etc...
that do a great job and take care of the riders that anyone who
doesn't is gone pretty quick.

Here's a link to a list for this year:
http://ne-bra.org/pages/members/members.asp

It might be the case that they don't have to kiss ass, but knowing
the people running things, and most are Natcoms with a ton of
integrity and dedication to doing things right so even in a worst case
scenario I don't think they'd let [censored] happen.
When USAC got too obnoxious it was no problem to go another direction
because these people believe in doing things the right way, and are
willing to put themselves way out on the line to make it happen.
Bill Black in particular has been incredible and everyone racing here
owes him a huge debt. Never seen anyone bully him, or get him to do
something he thought wasn't right either.
I'm pretty cynical, but my hats off to the folks here, and I believe
they'd do what's right for the racers in almost any case.
Bill C

You're missing it completely.

A number of years ago, Otto collected a surcharge for the Wisconsin
Cycling Association. Then he just kept it. For an event the size
of Superweek it was a chunk of change.

The local people were totally irrelevant. He still got his permit
for the next year, the WCA was SOL and that was that. To this day
Superweek runs separate from the WCA. No local person has one iota
of influence on it.

Why are you jabbering about people that don't matter? I'm not
questioning anyone's integrity, I'm questioning their relevance.

Bob Schwartz

On May 25, 4:58 pm, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

You're missing it completely.

A number of years ago, Otto collected a surcharge for the Wisconsin
Cycling Association. Then he just kept it. For an event the size
of Superweek it was a chunk of change.

The local people were totally irrelevant. He still got his permit
for the next year, the WCA was SOL and that was that. To this day
Superweek runs separate from the WCA. No local person has one iota
of influence on it.

Why are you jabbering about people that don't matter? I'm not
questioning anyone's integrity, I'm questioning their relevance.

Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bob, they wouldn't get any officials for the race unless USAC sent
them in from outside the region. That's happened here. Yes, USAC can
be scumbags, no question about that, but the race doesn't happen in
their offices. If there's no local support, local protests, local
people lobbying the towns to deny the permits, etc...you can force a
change. The people here would, and have done those things. Just
forcing them to bring officials in from far away is a huge expense to
the promoter. The political BS with NatCal races is sick. I agree with
that and could tell some stories. We've got one really good promoter
who's put together a bunch of packages for Nats and other things, and
has been told there's no chance in hell of getting them because they
rocked the boat.
Guess I'm militant, as are the people here. Not going to go into
details on [censored] that's happened out here, but USAC realized it needed
us more than we needed them.
I'm a firm believer that local pressure can make national changes.
Bill C

MagillaGorilla said:

USA Cycling is the agency responsible for enforcing arbitration
sanctions according to the WADA Code and USCF Rulebook, neither of which
you apparently read. Suing in small claims court is not correct unless
you sue USA Cycling.

The promoters paid out 100% of the prize money based on the CERTIFIED
results given to them by USCF/USAC officials. These results were
IMPROPERLY certified before the doping results were known. The promoter
is not responsible for paying out MORE money than what they promised on
their race flyer, which they complied with.

Dumbass,

The people that take Otto to small claims court get their money.
No one has ever gotten a dime going the route you're suggesting.

Making people wait until the dope tests are in before getting paid
is a novel idea, even for you. Although one year Otto did make
people wait a day for their money, which saved him a ton because
all the riders that couldn't be there got stiffed. I still can't
believe they let him do that, even once.

Bob Schwartz

MagillaGorilla said:

"Making people wait until the dope tests are in" can last for over a
year because it's confidential under the current system until a rider
either agrees to plead guilty or it's heard by arbitration.
Unfortunately that's the way it should be.

USAC has no business in certifying results until the dope tests are
known. That's the way the Olympics operates (with medals, albeit the
dope tests may take a 3-4 days)...that's the way the Tour de France
operates with prize money.

What I am saying, and you see to be too stoopid to hear,
is that it is hard enough under the best of circumstances
to get Superweek prize money paid. Under your scenario no
one gets paid anything, most likely everyone gets stiffed.

Stop wetting your fur because people that live with their
moms are getting ripped off by guys like Fuentes. No one,
including USAC, gives a [censored]. I know the rules say they
are supposed to give a [censored]. But they don't.

Bob Schwartz

On May 29, 9:45 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What I am saying, and you see to be too stoopid to hear,
is that it is hard enough under the best of circumstances
to get Superweek prize money paid. Under your scenario no
one gets paid anything, most likely everyone gets stiffed.

Stop wetting your fur because people that live with their
moms are getting ripped off by guys like Fuentes. No one,
including USAC, gives a [censored]. I know the rules say they
are supposed to give a [censored]. But they don't.

Bob Schwartz

I waqs going to answer Magilla, and I'll do it here, after answering
you.
Bob I absolutley believe what you say, and am with you that it's a
huge problem. I also believe you that USAC has fallen flat on their
faces on this. Just because we've had a different experience, for the
most part, here takes absolutley nothing away from what you are going
through.
I want to know if, magilla has verified Fuentes didn't/hasn't paid
back that prize money before re-instatement, and if so how he did it?
I don't htink that's an unfair question when he's blasting people,
largely based on it.
My dealings have been different, especially with Shawn, but the Neben
[censored] highlights that there're some real questionable practices
happening.
Just because I have positive things to say, based on my experiences,
in no way invalidates your negative experiences. That doesn't seem to
matter to Magilla though.
I love the scene in the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy series where
the guy who is running the universe only "knows" what is in his
immediate reality through direct experience, and considers anything
else speculation, and insists that noone can possibly know what the
reality is for people, and things they've never interacted with, or
what their reality is after they are gone again.
In your case I'm pretty familiar with you, and have absoulutely no
reason to question what you say. I've heard some of the same stuff
also, but don't know enough to form a concrete opinion one way or the
other on my own. I don't believe that you would say anything untrue
purposely.
It sucks that you have to put up with this [censored]. I'm willing to bet
that USAC wouldn't schedule a comparable event against this either if
someone wanted to run it, and run it right either.
The whole fiasco that happened to Gerard is telling IMO. There are
good people out there, but overall, as an organization I have serious
questions about them, and that's charitable.
Bill C

Bob Schwartz said:

MagillaGorilla said:

"Making people wait until the dope tests are in" can last for over a
year because it's confidential under the current system until a rider
either agrees to plead guilty or it's heard by arbitration.
Unfortunately that's the way it should be.

USAC has no business in certifying results until the dope tests are
known. That's the way the Olympics operates (with medals, albeit the
dope tests may take a 3-4 days)...that's the way the Tour de France
operates with prize money.

What I am saying, and you see to be too stoopid to hear,
is that it is hard enough under the best of circumstances
to get Superweek prize money paid. Under your scenario no
one gets paid anything, most likely everyone gets stiffed.

Stop wetting your fur because people that live with their
moms are getting ripped off by guys like Fuentes. No one,
including USAC, gives a [censored]. I know the rules say they
are supposed to give a [censored]. But they don't.

Bob Schwartz

If the promoter of Superweek doesn't pay out prize money, that needs to
be brought to theattention of USAC. There's a process you're suppose to
follow. [censored] about it on newsgroups isn't one of them.

Fuentes isn't ripping off anyone. USA Cycling is ripping them off by not
enforcing the rules and then giving Fuentes a license despite the fact
that he hasn't paid back his prize money.

It's also your fault - and that of other cyclists - for not complaining
about it.

Magilla

Bill C said:

On May 29, 9:45 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

What I am saying, and you see to be too stoopid to hear,
is that it is hard enough under the best of circumstances
to get Superweek prize money paid. Under your scenario no
one gets paid anything, most likely everyone gets stiffed.

Stop wetting your fur because people that live with their
moms are getting ripped off by guys like Fuentes. No one,
including USAC, gives a [censored]. I know the rules say they
are supposed to give a [censored]. But they don't.

Bob Schwartz

I waqs going to answer Magilla, and I'll do it here, after answering
you.
Bob I absolutley believe what you say, and am with you that it's a
huge problem. I also believe you that USAC has fallen flat on their
faces on this. Just because we've had a different experience, for the
most part, here takes absolutley nothing away from what you are going
through.
I want to know if, magilla has verified Fuentes didn't/hasn't paid
back that prize money before re-instatement, and if so how he did it?
I don't htink that's an unfair question when he's blasting people,
largely based on it.
My dealings have been different, especially with Shawn, but the Neben
[censored] highlights that there're some real questionable practices
happening.

Quoted message said:

Bill C

Fuentes has never paid back any of his prize money and neither has Neben.

Neben was DQ'ed from 3 races in 2003 - including one 2.9.1 race she won
- and she never paid back a penny of any of that money. Riders who
moved up a place also were never paid prorated increases for moving up
one place.

Magilla

In article <[email hidden]>, MagillaGorilla

Quoted message said:

Fuentes has never paid back any of his prize money and neither has Neben.

BUZZZZZZZ Wrong thank you for playing. I do know that Fuentes did pay
back prize money for some of the races before he got his license back.
I think it came down that if a race requested that prize money be paid
back then he had to pay back for that race before he got his license. I
know of at least two races that made this request and I know that the
prize money requested was paid back before he got his license.

Note I'm not going to get into the politics of if this was the right or
wrng thing to do I'm just clearing up a point of fact that at least
some prize money was paid back but not all prize money was paid back.

Bill C said:

MagillaGorilla said:

Bill C said:

On May 29, 9:45 am, Bob Schwartz <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

>What I am saying, and you see to be too stoopid to hear,
>is that it is hard enough under the best of circumstances
>to get Superweek prize money paid. Under your scenario no
>one gets paid anything, most likely everyone gets stiffed.

Quoted message said:

>Stop wetting your fur because people that live with their
>moms are getting ripped off by guys like Fuentes. No one,
>including USAC, gives a [censored]. I know the rules say they
>are supposed to give a [censored]. But they don't.

Quoted message said:

>Bob Schwartz

Quoted message said:

I waqs going to answer Magilla, and I'll do it here, after answering
you.
Bob I absolutley believe what you say, and am with you that it's a
huge problem. I also believe you that USAC has fallen flat on their
faces on this. Just because we've had a different experience, for the
most part, here takes absolutley nothing away from what you are going
through.
I want to know if, magilla has verified Fuentes didn't/hasn't paid
back that prize money before re-instatement, and if so how he did it?
I don't htink that's an unfair question when he's blasting people,
largely based on it.
My dealings have been different, especially with Shawn, but the Neben
[censored] highlights that there're some real questionable practices
happening.
Bill C

Fuentes has never paid back any of his prize money and neither has Neben.

Neben was DQ'ed from 3 races in 2003 - including one 2.9.1 race she won
- and she never paid back a penny of any of that money. Riders who
moved up a place also were never paid prorated increases for moving up
one place.

Magilla- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Neben's [censored] was just totally inexcuseable, and pure politics the
stench from that one is never going away. If Fuentes hasn't paid
everything back then there's no way in hell he should've been re-
instated. The huge reduction of the suspension was the worst of that
since noone else got that type of treatment.

Correct. Neither Neben nor Fuentes should have been issued a license
until they paid that money back. Technically speaking, Neben never
fulfilled the terms of her sanction and is thus ineligible to make the
Olympic Team should any female cyclist on the long team decide to issue
a protest.

But in both cases, the fault is with USA Cycling for not enforcing the
sanction.

Jeanson also never paid back any of her prize money and none of the
women from 2005 Toona were given increased prize money.

Magilla

Bill C said:

MagillaGorilla said:

Bill C wrote:

Quoted message said:

Neben's [censored] was just totally inexcuseable, and pure politics the
stench from that one is never going away. If Fuentes hasn't paid
everything back then there's no way in hell he should've been re-
instated. The huge reduction of the suspension was the worst of that
since noone else got that type of treatment.
I don't remember the details of the rules on this since it's not
something I have to deal with, but if it states that the prize money
must be repaid then there's no way in hell that Fuentes should've
gotten a license back if he hadn't paid back the prize money.
Bill C

When you are DQ'ed from a race it means you don't get to keep the prize
money. What details do you need to brush up on to figure that out?

Magilla

In article <[email hidden]>, MagillaGorilla

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

MagillaGorilla said:

Bill C wrote:

Quoted message said:

Neben's [censored] was just totally inexcuseable, and pure politics the
stench from that one is never going away. If Fuentes hasn't paid
everything back then there's no way in hell he should've been re-
instated. The huge reduction of the suspension was the worst of that
since noone else got that type of treatment.
I don't remember the details of the rules on this since it's not
something I have to deal with, but if it states that the prize money
must be repaid then there's no way in hell that Fuentes should've
gotten a license back if he hadn't paid back the prize money.
Bill C

When you are DQ'ed from a race it means you don't get to keep the prize
money. What details do you need to brush up on to figure that out?

Of course to be DQ'ed this has to happen before the end of the 15
minute protest period and before the results are made final. Once the
results are made final you can no longer DQ a ride.

Example from a big race I was an official at. In one of the main event
races a rider sat out a lap when a hard chase was going on. After
sitting out a lap the rider let air out of their tire and comes in for
a free lap. By this time the chase was over and the pace had slowed
down. Rider in question takes 3rd place. The results are announced and
the protest period ends. Right after the protest period had ended
riders come up who witnessed the whole incident. With some
investigation the officials were convinced that the rider in third had
improperly taken a free lap. Problem was since the results were final
nothing could be done to change the results so the only recourse was to
got for a suspension of the rider, which is what happened.

The real problem with the Fuentes case is the USADA handed down some
conditions of punishment that don't fit with the USCF rules. Per the
USCF rule book once the protest period is over you can't go back and
change the results. You can't wave a magic wand and turn back time to
say a rider who placed in a race actually didn't place in a race. USADA
messed up by trying to pretend that a 14 month suspension was rally a
24 month suspension. To achieve this 14 months equals 24 months reality
USADA asked that time be turned back and history be rewritten.
Unfortuantely this isn't how the USCF rule book works. Now if USADA
will be handing out more of this magic wand rewrite history type of
penality then the USCF rules will have to be altered to deal with this.

Casey Kerrigan said:

Now if USADA will be handing out more
of this magic wand rewrite history type of penality then the USCF rules
will have to be altered to deal with this.

Perhaps we can hack the virtual victory rbr super computer grid to act
as a USADA magic wand.

On Sat, 31 May 2008 09:16:02 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Fuentes has never paid back any of his prize money and neither has Neben.

Neben was DQ'ed from 3 races in 2003 - including one 2.9.1 race she won
- and she never paid back a penny of any of that money. Riders who
moved up a place also were never paid prorated increases for moving up
one place.

Anyone read the Joe Papp article in Outside magazine.

On Sat, 31 May 2008 11:55:15 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Shawn Farrell is a fraud. The guy just sits on his ass and lets rules
be violated left and right.

An officer in my club wrote to Farrell asking for clarification about
a reported suspension, how to deal with prize money, etc and got a
total non-answer.

Casey Kerrigan said:

In article <[email hidden]>, MagillaGorilla

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

On May 31, 9:16 am, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Bill C wrote:

Quoted message said:

Neben's [censored] was just totally inexcuseable, and pure politics the
stench from that one is never going away. If Fuentes hasn't paid
everything back then there's no way in hell he should've been re-
instated. The huge reduction of the suspension was the worst of that
since noone else got that type of treatment.
I don't remember the details of the rules on this since it's not
something I have to deal with, but if it states that the prize money
must be repaid then there's no way in hell that Fuentes should've
gotten a license back if he hadn't paid back the prize money.
Bill C

When you are DQ'ed from a race it means you don't get to keep the prize
money. What details do you need to brush up on to figure that out?

Of course to be DQ'ed this has to happen before the end of the 15
minute protest period and before the results are made final. Once the
results are made final you can no longer DQ a ride.

You are incorrect. I suggest you read the rulebook and the arbitration
sanctions. Doping sanctions are not bound by that 15 minute rule.

Do you think that Floyd gets to keep the trophy and the $600,000 from
the 2006 Tour de France?

Where do you people come up with this stuff?

Magilla

Casey Kerrigan said:

In article <[email hidden]>, MagillaGorilla

Quoted message said:

Bill C said:

On May 31, 9:16 am, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:

>Bill C wrote:

Quoted message said:

Neben's [censored] was just totally inexcuseable, and pure politics the
stench from that one is never going away. If Fuentes hasn't paid
everything back then there's no way in hell he should've been re-
instated. The huge reduction of the suspension was the worst of that
since noone else got that type of treatment.
I don't remember the details of the rules on this since it's not
something I have to deal with, but if it states that the prize money
must be repaid then there's no way in hell that Fuentes should've
gotten a license back if he hadn't paid back the prize money.
Bill C

When you are DQ'ed from a race it means you don't get to keep the prize
money. What details do you need to brush up on to figure that out?

Of course to be DQ'ed this has to happen before the end of the 15
minute protest period and before the results are made final. Once the
results are made final you can no longer DQ a ride.

Example from a big race I was an official at. In one of the main event
races a rider sat out a lap when a hard chase was going on. After
sitting out a lap the rider let air out of their tire and comes in for
a free lap. By this time the chase was over and the pace had slowed
down. Rider in question takes 3rd place. The results are announced and
the protest period ends. Right after the protest period had ended
riders come up who witnessed the whole incident. With some
investigation the officials were convinced that the rider in third had
improperly taken a free lap. Problem was since the results were final
nothing could be done to change the results so the only recourse was to
got for a suspension of the rider, which is what happened.

The real problem with the Fuentes case is the USADA handed down some
conditions of punishment that don't fit with the USCF rules. Per the
USCF rule book once the protest period is over you can't go back and
change the results. You can't wave a magic wand and turn back time to
say a rider who placed in a race actually didn't place in a race.

The problem with you (and most officials) is you need to read the USCF
Rulebook:

1C3. A rider who is disqualified for a medical control
infraction must promptly return any prizes and primes won in
the event, though this obligation shall be stayed while a
hearing is pending.

Take care,

Magilla