Updated: The UCI has this afternoon issued an angry response to news of a delay the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) sending it a full report on its decision last month to ban Lance Armstrong for life and strip him of results including his seven Tour de France victories. Earlier this week, USADA CEO Travis Tygart had said that the report would be sent to the UCI by the end of this month. Now, one of his colleagues has revealed it will no be delivered until mid-October.
In a statement issued today, the governing body said:
"The UCI wonders why it is taking USADA so long to provide its reasoned decision and case file.
"Reports state that its decision has been delayed because it is continuing to gather evidence and that it has yet to complete its case file.
“'The UCI had no reason to assume that a full case file did not exist but USADA’s continued failure to produce the decision is now a cause for concern,” said Mr McQuaid, UCI President.
“'It is over a month since USADA sanctioned Lance Armstrong. We thought that USADA were better prepared before initiating these proceedings” said Mr McQuaid.
"It seems that it would have been more useful for USADA to have used the time of the Tour de France, the Olympic Games and the Road World Championships to prepare their case in full rather than to make announcements.
"It is at very least unusual that USADA would still be gathering evidence against a person after it has found that person guilty.
"The UCI assumes that the reasons for any difficulty in putting the evidence together will be explained in USADA’s decision.
"The UCI has requested USADA to provide its decision and case file and has learnt of the reported delays through the media and not by any official communication from USADA. The sooner UCI receives the decision and case file the sooner UCI can provide its response."
According to a report yesterday on the website Sport 24, no explanation was given for the delay in an email to Reuters from USADA’s Annie Skinner in which she said that the agency “is in the process of finalising the written reasoned decision in its US Postal Services pro cycling doping case.
"We will provide the reasoned decision addressing the lifetime bans and disqualifications imposed to the UCI and WADA as provided for under the world rules. We expect it to be sent no later than October 15," she added.
USADA imposed its sanctions on Armstrong after the 41-year-old announced that he did not intend to fight its charges through arbitration, although he continues to deny that he doped during his career.
In the days preceding his announcement, Armstrong lost a civil court case in which he had challenged USADA's jurisdiction and claimed that his constitutional right to due process had been violated.
While he is banned from all competitive sport sanctioned by the World Anti-Doping Code, he is continuing to compete in a variety of events not bound by those rules.
Earlier this month, UCI president Pat McQuaid told Reuters: “Unless the USADA's decision and case file give serious reasons to do otherwise, the UCI has no intention to appeal to CAS [Court of Arbitration for Sport] or not to recognise the USADA's sanctions on Lance Armstrong.
"The UCI assumes that the decision and file will also detail the sanction the USADA may wish to enforce upon the riders who have provided testimony in exchange for reduced sanctions," he added.
Despite the ban, Armstrong has continued to ride and run in non sanctioned races and, during a recent Montreal speech to a cancer conference, referred to himself as a seven times Tour de France winner.
Add new comment
39 comments
If i was going after one of the biggest names in sport I'd have everything ready and prepared, including a well worked draft of a 'reasoned decision'. The delay in full disclosure is unacceptable and can only add fuel to the conspiracy fires. This must be exactly what LA wanted - the facts obscured by organizational incompetence and their internal processes and procedures left open to challenges from those that fund USADA.
But surely USADA knew all along that they had to provide the documents to the UCI and WADA so shouldn't they have been in a pretty good condition as they went along? To me (the general public) once again no one involved in this cr*p comes out of it looking particularly good.
I have long since accepted that LA doped. My cynicism is now reserved for everything else that has gone on. Sadly some of the comments attributed to Mr Tygart (and I emphasize attributed) just leave me wondering what is really going on.
Also, in this case, the governing body, UCI, has shown itself to be hostile to the sanctioning body, USADA.
So USADA have to ensure that the report can with-stand not only challenges to the evidence and conclusions made about the athlete, but also to any challenges the UCI might make. E.g. UCI has challenged USADAs' jurisdiction in this matter. The report thus may have to cover grounds which other cases do not have to cover. Also, this case is unusually large in scope.
interesting that they mention they want to see details of the reduced sanctions offered to people who testified against LA...
wonder if the UCI plans to pull another vindictive PR disaster in the form of trying to toughen those reduced sanctions, or some kind of attack on the whistle-blowers?
I hope they do - their suit against Paul Kimmage reeks of petty personal animosity; if they try to go after the people who agreed to speak to USADA it may well be the final nail in the coffin of their credibility (a nail I can't believe hasn't been widely recognised already!).
What is it about these governing bodies for sports? FIFA, UCI etc - corrupt much?
I agree with BigDummy, the 'reasoned decision' is the equivalent of a written report. They're saying that it takes time to prepare this in full (which is understandable) as it'll be tens of pages long to take into account all of the statements and evidence.
That's not the same as the USADA trying to find a reason for making a decision after making it.
This isn't a reasonable leap to make. Delivering a full written judgment on something to publication standards takes much longer than coming to the correct conclusion in the first place.
(I am a lawyer, although no expertise in sports law.)
I agree and therefore one would expect that one would not give any judgement until you could your publish judgement and one could demonstrate your thinking. Particulary where there are signifficant consequences concerned. To not do so leaves one open to the accusation of retrospective consideration and worse still leaves what should be done and dusted in the realms of conjecture and rumor. I stress I have no problem with the USADA role and the range of sanctions available to it, nore do I wish to defend Mr Armstrong.
But in the interests of cycling sport justice must be seen to be done at the time it is done and it's reasoning fully explained at that time.
I am not sure I agree. It may interest Lances'/UCI'S Lawyers that the reasoning, which surely had been reduced to paper, was not in a disclosable format that revealed USADA's assessment of the evidence and its reasoning behind the conclusions or findings reached. 2 good examples here by way of counterpoint are the District Judges written decision when acquitting Mr Terry and perhaps more appropriately, the report issued promptly by the FA following its investigation of Suares. I am not holding a candle for Armstrong here just saying that this seems an at best an unfortunate way for a regulatory/disciplinary body to go about its business and at worse invites suspicions about decisions reached in advance, publicised then questioned and then the report delayed whilst rewritten before distibution.
Hold on the implication of USADA statement is that they have taken action without reasoning that decision first. Therefore they are saying that their action is arbitrary as they are applying reason after action.
This does not alter the quality of the evidence against Armstrong or alter his guilt or otherwise. But does suggest that USADA is or can be erratic it the application of sanctions when athletes transgress. That its range of sanctions can be unjustly applied and applied disregarding consideration of the nature of the offence.
This certainly increases the power that USADA has over athletes, and could put into question the the faith we should have in its sanctions when applied.
Pages