The Armstrong case | Do We Learn Today
When the U.S. Attorney began investigating the various evidence against U.S. cyclist and since the only conclusive proof of a doping offense were the testimonies of former teammates, refuted by 218 negative test during his time as a professional, concluded that there was no basis to prosecute criminally cyclist.
Given this, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) soon continue its efforts to prosecute the athlete, but this time led by the banks of the sport, unlike what happens in Spain, USA, is not under state control. Thus, the June 29, 2012, initiated disciplinary proceedings and acting under the World Anti-Doping Code and the American general legislation. At this point the USADA decided to stay for life and disqualify Lance Armstrong in all competitions in which he has participated since August 1, 1998.
The surprise comes when the UCI recognize sleek kitchen and enforce the decision of the USADA, and to this we must ask: how can you proceed sleek kitchen to the international enforcement of a penalty imposed by a third party? And by what method recognizes that decision without any reply? Legally this sanction is somewhat strange and sobering.
First, the offense for which the cyclist is sanctioned, considering the World Anti-Doping Code, should not be a multiple offense, which is what leads to a perpetual penalty, but should be a simple offense, sleek kitchen all therefore based on Article 10.7.4, which prohibits this point by stating that for an offense to be multiple prior sanction requires a first and notified. Both the UCI and USADA have interpreted a violation is when a sum of multiple criminal conduct, conclusion not covered by the rule occurs.
Second, the doping offenses are subject to a limitation period of 8 years, as provided in Article 17 of the World Anti-Doping Code (not be able to take any action against an athlete for a violation of anti-doping rule unless that such action is commenced within eight years from the date on which the offense was committed according sleek kitchen to the indictment). Under this rule, the offenses of which accuses Armstrong during the years 1999 and 2004 had lapsed and therefore could only discipline you for offenses committed in 2005 and dispossess a tour. As we know, the decision to disqualify USADA has included all of his sporting life, something that does not respond to the said Article 17.
Finally, the only test that is used to sanction him as infringing anti-doping rules are a series of testimonies from other cyclists, against compelling sleek kitchen evidence to have had 218 tests negative. This is covered in art. 3.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code, which provides as a means of reliable evidence confessions, but also establishes the presumption as to the laboratories accredited by WADA, which means that there should be a weight of the evidence.
Can a parent move the residence of his son in case of separation sleek kitchen or divorce? Is there a sports law? Foreign sleek kitchen investment, does anyone know where to invest? Who pays the damages in a case such as the Prestige?
Tania Great article but honestly, an argument I've heard a lot and still do is that cycling without doping would not be cycling, or ropes could not take routes that currently carry! What do you think?
- Editor of the Legal Section Do We Learn Today. View full profile
Isabella,? Devout or art collector?
The beginnings of piracy
The forging of the Catholic Monarchs: Madrigal de las Altas Torres and Sos of the Catholic King
Public Administration China Archaeology quality art blog coaching FINANCIAL CRISIS Crisis Culture International law firm debt money education companies Spain Economy U.S. war strategy Finance Government sleek kitchen happiness history sleek kitchen innovation internet investment sleek kitchen tax home equity marketing nature painting politics psychology social media advertising reflexion Roma EU health technology work life
When the U.S. Attorney began investigating the various evidence against U.S. cyclist and since the only conclusive proof of a doping offense were the testimonies of former teammates, refuted by 218 negative test during his time as a professional, concluded that there was no basis to prosecute criminally cyclist.
Given this, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) soon continue its efforts to prosecute the athlete, but this time led by the banks of the sport, unlike what happens in Spain, USA, is not under state control. Thus, the June 29, 2012, initiated disciplinary proceedings and acting under the World Anti-Doping Code and the American general legislation. At this point the USADA decided to stay for life and disqualify Lance Armstrong in all competitions in which he has participated since August 1, 1998.
The surprise comes when the UCI recognize sleek kitchen and enforce the decision of the USADA, and to this we must ask: how can you proceed sleek kitchen to the international enforcement of a penalty imposed by a third party? And by what method recognizes that decision without any reply? Legally this sanction is somewhat strange and sobering.
First, the offense for which the cyclist is sanctioned, considering the World Anti-Doping Code, should not be a multiple offense, which is what leads to a perpetual penalty, but should be a simple offense, sleek kitchen all therefore based on Article 10.7.4, which prohibits this point by stating that for an offense to be multiple prior sanction requires a first and notified. Both the UCI and USADA have interpreted a violation is when a sum of multiple criminal conduct, conclusion not covered by the rule occurs.
Second, the doping offenses are subject to a limitation period of 8 years, as provided in Article 17 of the World Anti-Doping Code (not be able to take any action against an athlete for a violation of anti-doping rule unless that such action is commenced within eight years from the date on which the offense was committed according sleek kitchen to the indictment). Under this rule, the offenses of which accuses Armstrong during the years 1999 and 2004 had lapsed and therefore could only discipline you for offenses committed in 2005 and dispossess a tour. As we know, the decision to disqualify USADA has included all of his sporting life, something that does not respond to the said Article 17.
Finally, the only test that is used to sanction him as infringing anti-doping rules are a series of testimonies from other cyclists, against compelling sleek kitchen evidence to have had 218 tests negative. This is covered in art. 3.2 of the World Anti-Doping Code, which provides as a means of reliable evidence confessions, but also establishes the presumption as to the laboratories accredited by WADA, which means that there should be a weight of the evidence.
Can a parent move the residence of his son in case of separation sleek kitchen or divorce? Is there a sports law? Foreign sleek kitchen investment, does anyone know where to invest? Who pays the damages in a case such as the Prestige?
Tania Great article but honestly, an argument I've heard a lot and still do is that cycling without doping would not be cycling, or ropes could not take routes that currently carry! What do you think?
- Editor of the Legal Section Do We Learn Today. View full profile
Isabella,? Devout or art collector?
The beginnings of piracy
The forging of the Catholic Monarchs: Madrigal de las Altas Torres and Sos of the Catholic King
Public Administration China Archaeology quality art blog coaching FINANCIAL CRISIS Crisis Culture International law firm debt money education companies Spain Economy U.S. war strategy Finance Government sleek kitchen happiness history sleek kitchen innovation internet investment sleek kitchen tax home equity marketing nature painting politics psychology social media advertising reflexion Roma EU health technology work life
No comments:
Post a Comment