Now i've seen just about everything...
Posted: 16:00 Mon 15 Oct 2012
A surprisingly thoughtful comment piece from someone better known for his thuggery.
A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
Article 15.3 of the WADA code, in case you want to see for yourself, can be found on page 92 of the following link (here)Code Article 15.3 is quite clear that where anti-doping rule violations are not premised upon a specific Sample, that results management and hearings are governed by the procedural rules of the Anti- Doping Organization (ADO) ‟which discovered the violation.” In this case, and based on the fact known to us at this stage, there seems to be no question that the ADO which discovered the violations is USADA. Therefore, USADA’s results management procedure (i.e., the ‟USADA Protocol”) is controlling.
Your letters stating that the UCI is the results management authority in these cases purport to base that conclusion on UCI rules which in this case would conflict with the plain meaning of Code Article 15.3 and would, under your interpretation, broaden UCI’s results management authority to cases where merely evidence supportive of a rule violation was discovered by a UCI license holder or member. We do not believe that UCI has accurately interpreted its own rules in this regard. Rules need to be interpreted in light of the Code and the clear language of Article 15.3 of the Code leaves no room for the interpretation that UCI is making of its own rules.
...
The Code confers results management authority on the ADO ‟which discovered the violation,” not on the ADO which discovered the first shred of evidence that led to an investigation which then led to the discovery of violations. Moreover, it is clear that the UCI did not in any sense ‟discover” the 30 April 2010, email from Floyd Landis which was sent to USA Cycling President Steve Johnson and which was transmitted to USADA on 1 May 2010 with a request by Mr. Johnson for USADA to investigate. UCI cannot add language in its rules altering Article 15.3 of the Code and crediting UCI with the ‟discovery” of evidence that was actually discovered by another organization. Further, WADA understands from USADA that USADA’s communications with Mr. Landis about the topics in his email predated that email by several weeks. Accordingly, there is no basis under the Code or in common sense for the UCI’s assertion that it, rather than USADA, has results management authority in this case.
In addition to the UCI rules, we also understand that USADA’s authority to proceed against U.S. athlete Lance Armstrong derives independently from USADA’s substantive anti-doping rules and USADA’s results management authority under USADA’s own Code compliant rules. Pursuant to the Code, USADA’s rules are applicable to Mr. Armstrong by virtue of Mr. Armstrong’s membership in the USADA Registered Testing Pool, his former membership in USA Cycling and his current membership in USA Triathlon.