my refusal to wear a bicycle helmet

my refusal to wear a bicycle helmet
...is informed

Monday, October 22, 2012

UCI sucks - & so does USADA

(Images: Alan Moir, SMH, 22 October 2012)


RIP cycling

Erased from our memories now that the relationship has turned sour...

...so 'eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-y'

PATHETIC

2 comments:

  1. I don't mean to be a smart arse when I ask why you think USADA 'sucks'.
    I'm not sure what you are saying.
    I get why the UCI sucks in all of this, but why USADA?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In a nutshell, namely because of remarks made by the Texas District Court Judge Sam Sparks who, whilst he dismissed Armstrong’s lawsuit against USADA in August 2012 ‘without prejudice,’ was at pains to point out that:

      ‘Among the Court’s concerns is the fact that USADA has targeted Armstrong for prosecution many years after his alleged doping violations occurred, and intends to consolidate his case with those of several other alleged offenders, including - incredibly - several over whom USA Cycling and USOC apparently have no authority whatsoever. Further, if Armstrong's allegations are true, and USADA is promising lesser sanctions against other allegedly offending riders in exchange for their testimony against Armstrong, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that USADA is motivated more by politics and a desire for media attention than faithful adherence to its obligations to USOC.’ (Laura Weislo, 'Judge issues stinging criticism of USADA in Armstrong case' (20 August 2012) Cycling News http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/judge-issues-stinging-criticism-of-usada-in-armstrong-case)

      I'm disappointed too that we're relying on the Court of Public Opinion (heaven knows we've done that before here in Australia with catastrophic results) and that no-one has asked USADA questions about their failure to protect the rights of all American athletes during this time or that no-one has investigated the link between one of USADA's law firms, Bryan Cave LLP, and the fact that they have previously represented tobacco interests bearing in mind that Armstrong earlier this year supported California's Proposition 29, a tax initiative to increase the price of cigarettes. (Schrotenboer, ‘USADA on Armstrong: Evidence will 'speak for itself'’ USA TODAY (Online), 10 October 2012 http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/cycling/2012/10/09/lance-armstrong-doping-case/1622699/)

      I don't know whether he's guilty or not - but neither do any of us, and I feel anxious that he continues to plead 'not guilty' and that none of his drug tests has been positive - all we're going on is the testimony of self-confessed drug users. So we've decided that he's 'guilty until proven innocent' which is supposed to be all wrong in our common law countries

      I'm particularly concerned that despite the fact that these doping agencies are not courts of law, they now want even more funding from the public pool coupled with extended powers which would almost place them above and beyond the remit of our existing judicial system. Given the extent of the doping problem over the last 12 years since USADA has been in existence, I think we can say they're rubbish at what they supposed to do.

      There you have it! - wasn't really in a nutshell after all - thanks for dropping by, Smithy

      Delete