Richard Young to head WADA case - but this is very different to Armstrong case

Remove this Banner Ad

Dan Cooper

Dan Cooper

Victory Salute
Sep 26, 2013
8,071
4,823
Red Corner
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Boxing
Top US lawyer to head WADA case against Essendon



The strength of the case Young prepared against Armstrong is in stark contrast to the brief of evidence he has inherited from ASADA. Where USADA was able to rely on sworn testimony from former teammates and other team officials who implicated Armstrong in systematic doping, ASADA failed to secure sworn testimony from its two most important witnesses, pharmacist Nima Alavi and drug importer Shane Charter.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport...against-essendon/story-fnca0u4y-1227361572126
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Log in to remove this ad.

"Young subsequently played a pivotal role in cleaning up professional cycling, when on behalf of the United States Anti-Doping Agency he successfully prosecuted Tour de France winner Floyd Landis and helped construct the case against the biggest cheat of them all, Lance Armstrong."

Haha. Yeah sure Chip, he cleaned up Cycling
 
I like the inclusion of Young - provides colour and movement plus an excuse to mention Lance Armstrong a bunch of times.

I watched the doco on Arms recently - it was minding it's own business in my IQ and I discovered it when I finally got jack of attempting to get into that crappy Fortitude thing on ABC (terrible series - just awful). Lance Armstrong is a sensationally weird guy. Rates high on a weird scale. Maximum weird.
 
Anyone doubt WADA is taking this seriously now? Or that the case has a broader context in world sport, contrary to what Hird senior and his jingoistic ilk think?

The AFL tribunal allowed a couple of loopholes big enough to drive an AFL club through. I reckon WADA want to slam shut loophole one, ie no records equals no proof, quick smart before it becomes a thoroughfare and close loophole two, ie circumstantial evidence cant convict dope cheats, before it has cut off one of their nuts.
 
Chameleon75 said:
love the bolded paragraphs, doubt chippy has seen the full evidence brief of either case.
Click to expand...

Le Grande knows, like everybody else does by now, that ASADA failed to secure sworn testimony from their only two meaningful witnesses, Alavi & Charter.

When Richard Young ran against Lance Armstrong he had witnesses queuing up to bury Armstrong. Which they duly did.

The cases could hardly be more different.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dan Cooper said:
Le Grande knows, like everybody else does by now, that ASADA failed to secure sworn testimony from their only two meaningful witnesses, Alavi & Charter.

When Richard Young ran against Lance Armstrong he had witnesses queuing up to bury Armstrong. Which they duly did.

The cases could hardly be more different.
Click to expand...
So why are you using the Armstrong case as capital for your argument. :drunk:
 
Proper Gander said:
I like the inclusion of Young - provides colour and movement plus an excuse to mention Lance Armstrong a bunch of times.

I watched the doco on Arms recently - it was minding it's own business in my IQ and I discovered it when I finally got jack of attempting to get into that crappy Fortitude thing on ABC (terrible series - just awful). Lance Armstrong is a sensationally weird guy. Rates high on a weird scale. Maximum weird.
Click to expand...

The Armstrong Lie was a brilliant doco. Having seen it, you will appreciate how different this case is to Armstrong's.

Some of the people Armstrong pissed off grandly simply wouldn't go away, and when people started taking them seriously, Lance's goose was cooked.
 
Dan Cooper said:
Le Grande knows, like everybody else does by now, that ASADA failed to secure sworn testimony from their only two meaningful witnesses, Alavi & Charter.

When Richard Young ran against Lance Armstrong he had witnesses queuing up to bury Armstrong. Which they duly did.

The cases could hardly be more different.
Click to expand...

I believe lance had eight witnesses cut deals for their testimony. did they ever establish that the epo was actually epo or was it only testimony, wouldn't pass the afl tribunal.

I digress, has chip seen the full evidence brief of both cases?
 
Dan Cooper said:
Le Grande knows, like everybody else does by now, that ASADA failed to secure sworn testimony from their only two meaningful witnesses, Alavi & Charter.

When Richard Young ran against Lance Armstrong he had witnesses queuing up to bury Armstrong. Which they duly did.

The cases could hardly be more different.
Click to expand...

Yet Chip decided to bring it up and you decided to BOLD the paragraph. BALCO was bigger than the Armstrong case
 
This is yet another play by Vlad to try to add legitimacy to the incoming non-guilty verdict from WADA. The puppeteers continue to run the show. Disgraceful.
 
Wow WADA are bringing out the big guns for this. Having Young head the case just shows how seriously they're taking this case. I get the feeling they're trying to not just contest the verdict, but make an example of Essendon for other team sports to see.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Richard Young to head WADA case - but this is very different to Armstrong case

Similar threads

A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top