**** the UCI

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

That's what the teams all just said.

"After consulting with its member teams, the International Association
of Professional Cycling teams (AIGCP) announced Wednesday that a
unanimous decision had been reached to support participation in Paris-
Nice. The decision, another round in the ongoing dispute between the
UCI and Grand Tour organisers, comes after the UCI asked all
professional teams to boycott this year's event, which it is not
recognizing on its calendar."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news

You dumbasses had it nailed. Excluding astana would kill the ASO.

[till.marek@gmail.com]

On Feb 28, 6:44*am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> That's what the teams all just said.
>
> "After consulting with its member teams, the International Association
> of Professional Cycling teams (AIGCP) announced Wednesday that a
> unanimous decision had been reached to support participation in Paris-
> Nice. The decision, another round in the ongoing dispute between the
> UCI and Grand Tour organisers, comes after the UCI asked all
> professional teams to boycott this year's event, which it is not
> recognizing on its calendar."
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news
>
> You dumbasses had it nailed. Excluding astana would kill the ASO.

The Paris-Nice "out-of-competition" doping tests would make things
interesting, although just a rumour at this point. On any given
stage, riders may have to choose between refusing a drug test or
dropping out of Paris-Nice.

The doping violations won't stick, and it will probably do nothing but
piss off the riders. I'm no fan of the ASO, but the UCI should
rethink this (if the rumours turn out to be true and they are
considering this).

Anyone smart on the dope testing regs? Can the UCI do this?

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Feb 28, 10:03 am, till.ma...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 28, 6:44 am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > That's what the teams all just said.
>
> > "After consulting with its member teams, the International Association
> > of Professional Cycling teams (AIGCP) announced Wednesday that a
> > unanimous decision had been reached to support participation in Paris-
> > Nice. The decision, another round in the ongoing dispute between the
> > UCI and Grand Tour organisers, comes after the UCI asked all
> > professional teams to boycott this year's event, which it is not
> > recognizing on its calendar."
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news
>
> > You dumbasses had it nailed. Excluding astana would kill the ASO.
>
> The Paris-Nice "out-of-competition" doping tests would make things
> interesting, although just a rumour at this point. On any given
> stage, riders may have to choose between refusing a drug test or
> dropping out of Paris-Nice.
>
> The doping violations won't stick, and it will probably do nothing but
> piss off the riders. I'm no fan of the ASO, but the UCI should
> rethink this (if the rumours turn out to be true and they are
> considering this).

I'm guessing an ASO doping violation can be enforced any way they
want. I have no idea if the UCI will react to this.

> Anyone smart on the dope testing regs? Can the UCI do this?

Do what ? Not sanction Paris-NIce ? yes they can.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<427fb4c0-08be-4ff2-a510-99805cae4df8@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
till.marek@gmail.com wrote:

> On Feb 28, 6:44*am, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > That's what the teams all just said.
> >
> > "After consulting with its member teams, the International Association
> > of Professional Cycling teams (AIGCP) announced Wednesday that a
> > unanimous decision had been reached to support participation in Paris-
> > Nice. The decision, another round in the ongoing dispute between the
> > UCI and Grand Tour organisers, comes after the UCI asked all
> > professional teams to boycott this year's event, which it is not
> > recognizing on its calendar."
> >
> > http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/feb08/feb28news
> >
> > You dumbasses had it nailed. Excluding astana would kill the ASO.
>
> The Paris-Nice "out-of-competition" doping tests would make things
> interesting, although just a rumour at this point. On any given
> stage, riders may have to choose between refusing a drug test or
> dropping out of Paris-Nice.

Oh, I bet the ASO would _love_ to take anything that stupid to the Court
of Arbitration for Sport. I doubt pulling that sort of crap couldn't
survive even the simplest Natural Justice test. Sandy?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Ted van de Weteringe]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> stage, riders may have to choose between refusing a drug test or
>> dropping out of Paris-Nice.
>
> Oh, I bet the ASO would _love_ to take anything that stupid to the Court
> of Arbitration for Sport. I doubt pulling that sort of crap couldn't
> survive even the simplest Natural Justice test. Sandy?

Whachutalkinbout? As a rider, I'd like those odds: either refuse the
dope test or drop out of the race.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de news:nghfs3l2n120ombbpcp14i88jb4nvlp0t0@4ax.com,
Ted van de Weteringe <myfullname@xs4all.nl.invalid> a réfléchi, et puis a
déclaré :
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> stage, riders may have to choose between refusing a drug test or
>>> dropping out of Paris-Nice.
>>
>> Oh, I bet the ASO would _love_ to take anything that stupid to the
>> Court of Arbitration for Sport. I doubt pulling that sort of crap
>> couldn't survive even the simplest Natural Justice test. Sandy?
>
> Whachutalkinbout? As a rider, I'd like those odds: either refuse the
> dope test or drop out of the race.


I am troubled that there might be any impression that the TAS has justice as
a goal. Most tribunals, governmental or private (such as an ICC panel)
refer to a body of public law chosen by the parties to the arbitration. A
TAS
panel is not obligated in this way. Its entire purview is the application
of private regulation to a dispute. These private regulations, in our
sport, are those of the UCI, explicitly. If, for example, a national
federation comes to a decision that the UCI does not approve, the UCI may
bring the federation's decision to the TAS under appeal. The idea that
having "hearings" that follow some procedural norms, then the option of an
"appeal" to a "Court" or "Tribunal" at an "Arbitration" falsely leads one to
think that there is conventional jurisprudence at work, when this is
entirely not the case.

For those who followed the Landis matter (I did), one could have an
impression that the panel was circumspect in conducting the process. I
applaud their efforts, but I want to remind that they had already undertaken
to apply rules which IMHO are abominably warped in favor of punishment, with
all
presumptions falling in favor of finding violations, regardless of
procedural anomalies. I won't find fault with the result nor with the
correctness of the panel. But the entire process is loaded to convict, and
the TAS is designed to confirm convictions, not to do any sort of Natural
Justice.

What has been only modestly challenged is whether the TAS is the type of
private arbitral environment whose decisions may be honored internationally
in courts of law. The lawyer Kashechkin had, then fired, is the only one
who has brought such
a challenge, successfully, when it came to employment practices, and that
has changed a great deal in the world of international football.
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

"Le Vin est la plus saine et la plus hygiénique des boissons."
- Louis Pasteur

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Feb 29, 8:12 am, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:nghfs3l2n120ombbpcp14i88jb4nvlp0t0@4ax.com,
> Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> a réfléchi, et puis a
> déclaré :
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>> stage, riders may have to choose between refusing a drug test or
> >>> dropping out of Paris-Nice.
>
> >> Oh, I bet the ASO would _love_ to take anything that stupid to the
> >> Court of Arbitration for Sport. I doubt pulling that sort of crap
> >> couldn't survive even the simplest Natural Justice test. Sandy?
>
> > Whachutalkinbout? As a rider, I'd like those odds: either refuse the
> > dope test or drop out of the race.
>
> I am troubled that there might be any impression that the TAS has justice as
> a goal. Most tribunals, governmental or private (such as an ICC panel)
> refer to a body of public law chosen by the parties to the arbitration. A
> TAS
> panel is not obligated in this way. Its entire purview is the application
> of private regulation to a dispute. These private regulations, in our
> sport, are those of the UCI, explicitly.

dumbass,

correct. the point of CAS is to ensure that the NGBs uphold the UCI
rules, but it goes both ways.

if an NGB deals too leniently with an athlete the UCI can appeal the
ruling through CAS, but if an athlete is dealt too harshly with (such
as say not recognizing legitimate TUEs) the UCI can (and should)
appeal through CAS to get the NGB to conform.

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:a76f2353-8143-4e84-b882-205b75b49b09@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
amit.ghosh@gmail.com <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> On Feb 29, 8:12 am, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
>> Dans le message denews:nghfs3l2n120ombbpcp14i88jb4nvlp0t0@4ax.com,
>> Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> a réfléchi, et
>> puis a déclaré :
>>
>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>>>> stage, riders may have to choose between refusing a drug test or
>>>>> dropping out of Paris-Nice.
>>
>>>> Oh, I bet the ASO would _love_ to take anything that stupid to the
>>>> Court of Arbitration for Sport. I doubt pulling that sort of crap
>>>> couldn't survive even the simplest Natural Justice test. Sandy?
>>
>>> Whachutalkinbout? As a rider, I'd like those odds: either refuse the
>>> dope test or drop out of the race.
>>
>> I am troubled that there might be any impression that the TAS has
>> justice as a goal. Most tribunals, governmental or private (such as
>> an ICC panel) refer to a body of public law chosen by the parties to
>> the arbitration. A TAS
>> panel is not obligated in this way. Its entire purview is the
>> application of private regulation to a dispute. These private
>> regulations, in our sport, are those of the UCI, explicitly.
>
> dumbass,
>
> correct. the point of CAS is to ensure that the NGBs uphold the UCI
> rules, but it goes both ways.
>
> if an NGB deals too leniently with an athlete the UCI can appeal the
> ruling through CAS, but if an athlete is dealt too harshly with (such
> as say not recognizing legitimate TUEs) the UCI can (and should)
> appeal through CAS to get the NGB to conform.

I am troubled to think you find this to be a good thing.

[amit.ghosh@gmail.com]

On Feb 29, 6:41 pm, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> Dans le message denews:a76f2353-8143-4e84-b882-205b75b49b09@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com,
> amit.gh...@gmail.com <amit.gh...@gmail.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 29, 8:12 am, "Sandy" <leur...@free.fr> wrote:
> >> Dans le message denews:nghfs3l2n120ombbpcp14i88jb4nvlp0t0@4ax.com,
> >> Ted van de Weteringe <myfulln...@xs4all.nl.invalid> a réfléchi, et
> >> puis a déclaré :
>
> >>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >>>>> stage, riders may have to choose between refusing a drug test or
> >>>>> dropping out of Paris-Nice.
>
> >>>> Oh, I bet the ASO would _love_ to take anything that stupid to the
> >>>> Court of Arbitration for Sport. I doubt pulling that sort of crap
> >>>> couldn't survive even the simplest Natural Justice test. Sandy?
>
> >>> Whachutalkinbout? As a rider, I'd like those odds: either refuse the
> >>> dope test or drop out of the race.
>
> >> I am troubled that there might be any impression that the TAS has
> >> justice as a goal. Most tribunals, governmental or private (such as
> >> an ICC panel) refer to a body of public law chosen by the parties to
> >> the arbitration. A TAS
> >> panel is not obligated in this way. Its entire purview is the
> >> application of private regulation to a dispute. These private
> >> regulations, in our sport, are those of the UCI, explicitly.
>
> > dumbass,
>
> > correct. the point of CAS is to ensure that the NGBs uphold the UCI
> > rules, but it goes both ways.
>
> > if an NGB deals too leniently with an athlete the UCI can appeal the
> > ruling through CAS, but if an athlete is dealt too harshly with (such
> > as say not recognizing legitimate TUEs) the UCI can (and should)
> > appeal through CAS to get the NGB to conform.
>
> I am troubled to think you find this to be a good thing.

dumbass,

first: this was done to create uniformity across the NGBs and ADAs of
different sports and countries.

second: you hold the sentiment that a lot do, that the UCI is out to
persecute riders, but in fact the UCI rules were designed to protect
the riders' interests. and they've been doing it well. prior to 2007
the UCI had not been proactive in fighting doping in cycling, and the
UCI only signed on to the UCI code before the 2004 olympics.

the anti-doping rules are meant to make the sport fair for the
athletes, but we are seeing the system being tested by riders who are
doping and it's not surprising that the casual cycling fan is more
sympathetic to a charismatic athlete than the bureaucrats who's task
it is to sanction them.

you can't make a fair analogy of the enforcement of UCI rules to
criminal cases, because in the latter system the persecuting side has
access to a lot more resources than the NGBs and ADAs do, which is why
the guardia civil and the french cops are actually better at catching
dopers than the ADAs are.