Thursday, September 27, 2012

Understatement of the Day

From Pat McQuaid, head of the UCI (here), after reports emerged that the USADA had delayed sending the UCI the dossier on the Lance Armstrong case because it was still gathering evidence:
"It is at very least unusual that USADA would still be gathering evidence against a person after it has found that person guilty."
Unusual? Yes. Surprising? Not when one considers the lack of due process in the USADA's witch hunt so far. Apparently, the agency is working overtime to frame the guilty.

6 comments:

  1. There has hardly been a lack of due process. In August, a federal judge plainly stated, "With respect to Armstrong's due process challenges, the court agrees they are without merit." Pat McQuaid's possible motivation to discredit USADA must also be considered. For example, there have been multiple allegations by former teammates that the UCI covered up an Armstrong positive test. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012/09/21/cycling-chief-denies-hiding-armstrong-doping-test/57819518/1

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course the judge's statement about the due process challenge was simply dicta because the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It did not actually consider evidence on the issue of due process, or any other issue. Moreover, the judge's assertion that the well-established arbitration processes of sports governing bodies are superior to a US court's decision on US constitutional claims is dubious to say the least.

    I don't doubt the motives of the UCI at all, but the mere fact that USADA has not yet submitted the dossier to them, as it is required to do, is troubling in and of itself.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  3. "but the mere fact that USADA has not yet submitted the dossier to them, as it is required to do, is troubling in and of itself."


    Why is it troubling? Because McQuaid complained about it? There is no timeline in the WADA code for turning over the decision. And several cycling websites are reporting that new evidence continues to pour in which is causing the delay. This dossier will be packed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Again, as a matter of due process, evidence should come before a decision. If USADA was continuing to collect evidence, why did it not hold off in announcing both its verdict and its sanction? That's how probably structured and unbiased adjudicative proceedings usually work.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dan, do you listen to the Spokesmen podcast? Their early September episode contains an extensive discussion of WADA-UCI-etc. and the chaotic and incestuous governance in our favorite sport, including the due process issues:

    http://www.the-spokesmen.com/wordpress?p=395

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for the tip Lynne. And good to hear from you.

    Best.

    Dan

    ReplyDelete

I actively moderate comments for spam, advertisements, and abusive or offensive language.