Has the UCI dumped Armstrong ?

Discussion in 'Professional Cycling' started by whiteboytrash, Apr 7, 2009.

  1. slovakguy

    slovakguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    33
    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.
     


  2. Bike N Ski

    Bike N Ski New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    That's ok.


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

    jimmypop New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  5. Flyer

    Flyer Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,961
    Likes Received:
    0
    ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
     
  6. LewisBricktop

    LewisBricktop New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    3
    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."
     
  7. Flyer

    Flyer Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,961
    Likes Received:
    0
    ddddd
     
  8. wineandkeyz

    wineandkeyz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. wineandkeyz

    wineandkeyz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  10. wineandkeyz

    wineandkeyz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    And anyone who doesn't recognize the work he has done to fight cancer is an idiot.
     
  11. wineandkeyz

    wineandkeyz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dude, you live in Iowa. Quit with the bogus "shite" stuff...
     
  12. wineandkeyz

    wineandkeyz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    0
    The first sensical thing you've ever posted here.
     
  13. swampy1970

    swampy1970 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    Messages:
    10,057
    Likes Received:
    185
    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...
     
  14. whiteboytrash

    whiteboytrash New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,402
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 ?
     
  15. musette

    musette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  16. thunder

    thunder New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    feedbag, StrongArm is going down.
     
  17. musette

    musette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  18. thunder

    thunder New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,214
    Likes Received:
    0
    your conspiracy theories are instructive
     
  19. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    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.
     
  20. musette

    musette New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
Loading...
Loading...