Top sports lawyers say USADA Lance Armstrong sanctions ignored anti-doping rules - urge WADA to appeal

Letting the likes of Vaughters off the hook is 'double standards' is it? The small case of x7 standards seems to out weigh the 8 year limitation in my mind.

I sort of agree with Colin. Lawyers have a way of splitting hairs, hell that is how they came up with the Doctrine of Stare Decisis. As for the rules governing statutory interpretation, the literal the golden and the mischief rules....it is proven beyond a doubt Lance was up to some mischief!! I can not help feel that these people are now only coming on board because of the importance we attribute to the unveiling of the scope of drug abuse within the pro tour teams and their apparent nonchalent attitude that they were perceived as invincible. The cover up was proven to be systemic through out the sport and we are now only realising how far widespread it really was. If one were to look at it another way, if a drug dealer(generic now) achieved massive wealth from being involved in an illegal activity. The law suggests when held accountable that an individual should not benefit from those ill gotten gains. I doubt there would be a statute of limitations on that. So it would not be unreasonable to see the approach that USADA chose. They are not suggesting that this is a contractual matter but one that is referenced in criminal law. Why the justice department did not pursue this matter when they had the opportunity is beyond me. Maybe they did not have such good investigators. And the dating of some of the testimony in the dossier suggests they were against the clock. No amount of skilled advocates will tell us that, what we patently see as black and white, is simply shades of grey. We have all seen the outfall of this reasoned document! Are the lawyers then to suggest to us that the premise of the document was without foundation. Thankfully we live in a society where it is not always the judges and the lawyers who make the final decisions but the jurors. We may have been empanelled in a public forum but if the defence offers no defence what are we to conclude? No point crying foul afterwards when you lost and then argue in retrospect taht you were denied due process when you should have taken the stand. Why would WADA appeal anything and get drawn into a black hole wherein we would then start to question their competency. They fight for the things we all fight for and that is a level playing field open to all prospective athletes. It is not simply who can pay the best lawyer. You see they were never part of the jury!! The only reason the UCI are 'concerned' by the UsADA approach is because they are embarrassed by the whole affair. The good law professor from Switzerland implies as so much.

If the whole doctrine of marketing in cycling is based on public perception, then the UCI failed miserably. For them to even consider going to Cas is tantamount to shooting themselves in the other foot!

Seen elsewhere.

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) advises that it will not exercise its independent right of appeal following its review of the reasoned decision delivered by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) in the case against former cyclist Lance Armstrong.

So no work for the druggers briefs

Lawyers in touting for business shocker.

Clutching at straws time, LA had the opportunity to have his case heard, he also has the right of appeal and to go to CAS, he is choosing not to, due to the evidence against him. In all likelyhood he would have to admit at some point that he doped, personally i think he will want it to blow over and in year or two he will launch another book and confess his sins.WADA wont appeal against this one as they have sided with the USADA on this and we now await the UCI internal investigation which won't be worth bothering about and hopefully Paul Kimmages successful lawsuit against the UCI. Can i have my law degree now please.

"The law is an ass"

As the previous post points out, reclaiming the titles under a legal precedent does not excuse the drug taking and would not really appear to be justice. Although it is difficult to appreciate the full tort of Armstrong's actions.

Given the extent and prevalence of drug taking by all competitors in this era the biggest victims are largely nameless. But to argue that no harm has been done, or that too much time has past does not stand up. We do not put a limit on the trial or murderers for their crimes so why is it any more fair to allow someone to escape justice. In fact it's precisely because Armstronf has benefitted so much that Armstrong needs to be sanctioned. If you show that cheaters do not prosper fewer will be tempted to try.

This is Contador's friend whom Contador chose for his CAS case.

Contador might be slightly worried about Bruyneel taking him down as well as others to get a reduced sentence or out of bitterness.

It doesn't matter whether WADA do or don't appeal - it makes no difference to whether Lance had fair rights of appeal. Because Lance Armstrong himself had the right to contest the case, to have it referred to an independent arbitration panel and heard there. Lance Armstrong chose not to contest.

WADA and UCI are under no obligation at all to appeal cases on behalf of athletes. Ultimately it is the athlete who must look after their own interests. WADA and UCI have the right to appeal in *their own* interests (e.g. the interests of anti-doping, and the interests of the sport for UCI).

This is such obvious stuff you have to wonder about these sports lawyers.

Lance Armstrong employs the sort of lawyers that will cut your face off and wear it as a mask. If USADA had done anything to deny him his rights under statute law OR sporting regulations they would have appealed.

hmmm - I've sat on the fence for a long time on this one - and frankly stopped reading most things out of exasperation

but if the rest of the evidence is *so* damning against Armstrong - a successful appeal based on a statute of limitations would do him no good whatsoever