Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Irregular Report 38

ESPN/Bonnie Ford confirm that ACE is folding, leaving Garmin, Columbia, and BMC hung out to dry. One partial cause may have been the exit of Paul Scott from ACE, following his help with the Landis defense. We guess Scott Analytics, used by Rock, is still operating -- but if Scott was blacklisted for helping Landis, then he might still not be acceptable for these teams.

Racejunkie
catches us up on all the latest from the world of cycling including a few choice words on Bijarne Riis, and a mention on Floyd Landis' new team.

11 comments:

whareagle said...

I find the whole ACE demise ironic. Scott Analytics was the better choice to begin with. Vaughters continues to bet on horses that finish down the line a ways, recent comments notwithstanding.

jrdbutcher said...

The whole notion of “blacklisting” is troublesome and demonstrates certain “powers that be” within the bike racing community have difficulty applying lessons that should have been learned from history.

Paul Scott seems to be a stand up sort of guy. I’m disappointed the system is more than willing to cast aside his intelligent and well supported testimony because his opinions are inconveniently unpopular wrt the anti-doping movement, in its current incarnation.

OTOH, I hope Garmin, Columbia, and BMC are able to secure a suitable replacement for ACE, if for no other reason than to defend innocent riders from erroneous doping charges.

Bill Mc said...

TBV,

It is getting kind of quiet around here. Maybe this is a good time to ask an off-topic question: How is your recovery from your accident coming?

jrdbutcher said...

My previous post was inaccurate. Paul Scott made declarations. He did not testify.
jrd

("Eightzero") said...

Anyone able to comment on Sue Hayward's recent award of damages:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/nov08/nov08news

This is the first I've heard of the case, but it looks like there was an arbitration overturned along the way, and then a jury award of damages by a US Federal Court. I'm guessing the contractual basis for dispute resolution was the same USAC racing license application Floyd agreed to.

Stare Decisis?

DR said...

Eightzero -
So far as I can tell, in the Hayward case there was no "overturned" arbitration. In fact the award was based upon the Court finding that USA Cycling failed to comply with its "affirmative duty to transmit results to the UCI" which resulted in the adverse arbitration finding. The jury decided only the measure of damages and awarded $60K for annoyance and $240K for emotional distress.
(Case 2:05-cv-00078-JPB, N. Dist. W. VA, Documents #86 and 87 tell the story)

Bottom line - Probably no relevance whatsoever to Floyd's case.

("Eightzero") said...

Thanks for the docs, TBV. Hayward's action is a simple negligence case. The arbitration invoved appears to be McConnoloug's. So how does Hayward get to go directly to a "real court" rather than the arbitration apparently provided for in the USAC license agreement? USAC seems to plead this as an affirmative defense, but it seems like a loser. Exhaustion of administrative remidies is something that applies (I think) only to government entities, something it seems USAC (not USADA) is not.

In Floyd's case, the USADA sure didn't follow its own procedures, and seemingly has a duty to do so. And it seems like CAS maybe they didn't either. I suppose that is the only extent the cases are similar.

DR said...

So how does Hayward get to go directly to a "real court" rather than the arbitration apparently provided for in the USAC license agreement?

To use the language from Floyd's license as an example:
"I agree to submit any protests or disputes regarding drug testing when competing outside the United States or in international races to the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) ..."

("Eightzero") said...

Hmmmm....I think I'm getting it. The Hayward case is based solely on *USAC* screwing up. How wonderful for them they outsourced the drug testing stuff to USADA.

DR said...

The Hayward case is based solely on *USAC* screwing up

Well, yes, but there was no arbitration requirement because there was no dispute over drug testing.

("Eightzero") said...

Now I got it. USCA won't let you sue them over drug testing. Not only do they require arbitration, but they've conveniently handed that little project over to the minions at USADA. When that all goes awry, they simply deny a license until they...well, decide otherwise. As Mr. Burns would say while rubbing his hands together: "...EX-cellent..."

That's one of the really great things about TBV....learn lots of stuff here.