Has the UCI dumped Armstrong ?

couple of thoughts...

lance takes the high road? then what was all that twittering noise coming out of the lance, johan, astana camps? sounded like major spin control to these ears. thinking ole big just forgot about the rules tex took the high road only after his personal finger puppet pat weighed in on an issue his very own organisation said they had no interest in.

as far as piss testing. every one i've been invited to participate in where i've had to give a sample, the rules are very simple and explicit. it is up to me to verify that i am in compliance with the test and be vigilant that no errors are made on the part of the tester/dco which would jeopardise my employment. know that i'll be out of a job and sent to rehab if the test pops positive or if the dco suspects i've attempted to alter the sample or if the dco make an egregious error on the forms, it is my responsibility to make sure that the anomalies are noted. and i've not had to give 24 samples this year like lance. cut to the bone, he screwed up on a procedural error, but he doesn't want to pay the price like rasmussen did.

 

Sorry L-man, didn't make myself clear. That italicized quote was Bro Deal's. I was responding to him not you, I just didn't want to post twice. He think's just because he's addicted to all things Armstrong, the rest of us are also, and can't see the forest for the trees like he can't.

 

That's ok.


Personally I think BroDeal's posts a lot of very perceptive insights on most matters discussed here.

 

If you don't care, then don't post.

Armstrong matters because he fucked the sport once, and continues to fuck it with his return. The sooner he rides into the sunset (or into a ravine), the better.

Anyone who thinks of him as a role model is either ignorant or a bad judge of role models.

 

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

 

That last line bugs the shite out of me. For someone who loves the sport, the fight against cancer, and skanks as much as he claims to, he seems to be giving up the battle a bit to soon, non? He never would have resorted to calling it "their event, their rules" in 2005 or earlier.

I think he is finally realizing that he would ride like shite in the Tour, and that he is starting to build the foundation for his giant excuse to not ride. He will still leave the Giro early so that he can "prepare for the run-up to the Tour," as if preparing for preparing wasn't suspicious anyway. Then, blame his non-start in the Dauphine and Tour on the AFLD.

He must really be hoping they make good on the threats now. And, if they dont sanction him, he can still pull out of the Giro due to a "sore shoulder."

 

ddddd

 

Limerick, you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass. You, along with your blowbuddes WBT, Bro Deal, and that unintelligible Frenchy poulidor have been on an anti-Armstrong witchhunt for years. Get lives, all of you.

 

Actually, they appear to have equal standing.

But the issue here is how does the athlete know that a person claiming to be a tester is actually a tester? From reading this forum, I can name a half-dozen of you clowns that would volunteer to pretend to be testers.

 

And anyone who doesn't recognize the work he has done to fight cancer is an idiot.

 

Dude, you live in Iowa. Quit with the bogus "shite" stuff...

 

The first sensical thing you've ever posted here.

 

It would appear that way if you read and believe the papers, but in reality it doesn't. If it did they'd say that in the rules. Rules are written to be unambiguous.

Semantics are a bitch at times...

 

Good point. In addtion to this. Why didn't Lance make note of his concerns about the testing on the form before signing ? He stated that he said "no" and signed. Now that he's been busted he makes references to so called "irregular" behaviour from the tester. Would have been better to note these or at the very least submit a compliant after the test ?

 

But the obligation is still on the tester because, as I noted previously, 5.4.2 and 5.4.1 are both framed as obligations of the tester. The main emphasis of the portion of 5.4.1 that mentions the athlete's responsibilities, like the emphasis of other portions of 5.4.1, is for the tester to tell the athlete of the athlete's responsibilities.

So both sections cast the onus essentially on the tester.

This will hurt the AFLD.

I want to mention the possiblity of a more sinister interpretation than even the one that LA is advancing. Let's say (hypothetically) the AFLD doesn't want Astana in the Tour at all. But they don't to provoke another fight with the UCI by just outright encouraging ASO to ban the entire team. They could try to exclude LA on objectively-invalid grounds, and then hope that Astana, out of support for LA, would not ride the Tour at all. However, that will not work. Even if AFLD were to inappropriately succeed in excluding LA on the basis of any alleged infraction based on the incident we have been talking about, that would only help the Astana team to become more motivated and for Alberto to win the Tour again and dedicate his viectory to LA. So, if LA gets to ride the Tour, Astana wins (literally and figuratively). If LA does not get to ride the Tour, Astana also wins!

 

feedbag, StrongArm is going down.

 

If AFLD bans LA from the Tour based on this (as LA has suggested might be the motivation of AFLD), then could LA seek an expedited review by the Court of Arbitration for Sport before the Tour begins?

 

your conspiracy theories are instructive

 

That's not how the law works.
No matter how much you try to twist it.

If section 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 are of equal precendent, there would be no demarcation between sections.
The provisions framed in both sections 5.4.1 and 5.4.2, would be framed under one section 5.4.1. (for example), if the current provisions were of equal precendent.

But both sectons are not of equal precendent - because 5.4.1 supercedes 5.4.2. chronologically and with regard to the procedure to be followed while conducting the test.

In any event, the onus is on the athlete to abide by the rules and to stay within the sight on the testing official at all times until the test is completed and the documentation is signed by both parties.

 

I encourage readers to review the actual lead-in language to 5.4.1 itself (as I previously excerpted). It speaks for itself!

Bottom line is LA will win this one, if he wants to fight it. As far as I have heard, nobody affirmatively prevented the tester from following LA into the shower area. So, if LA shows by his actions or told the tester he was going to shower (as he did, in both cases), the tester breached his obligation to keep the athlete within direct observation. If the tester thought something was wrong, why did the tester note no irregularities on the normally utilized testing form signed by both tester and athlete?