Bye Lance

[Rich753]

The fact that the Panel itself raised the issue of confidentiality and then says something to the effect of, 'actually, it's ok 'cos we're good chaps really and we didn't think he was a guilty bastard before we reviewed the case' does not affect Bruyneel's right or capability of questioning the process in front of a properly neutral court. Whether he will or not is probably a matter of cash. The fact remains that USADA's open naming of other people in the Reasoned Decision was a cock-up, legally, and shouldn't have happened. And it may yet result in Bruyneel and the others getting off, at least in the sense that the verdict could be set aside. It's extremely unlikely that any of them could work in cycling again. However, the medics involved could (and should) find themselves up against misconduct proceedings within their own professional realm, and that process would fail if the USADA verdict was overturned. That's why it's so important that not only the right verdict is arrived at, but that it's arrived at in the right way.

WTF are you talking about " a properly neutral court"?

[TimC]

The fact that the Panel itself raised the issue of confidentiality and then says something to the effect of, 'actually, it's ok 'cos we're good chaps really and we didn't think he was a guilty bastard before we reviewed the case' does not affect Bruyneel's right or capability of questioning the process in front of a properly neutral court. Whether he will or not is probably a matter of cash. The fact remains that USADA's open naming of other people in the Reasoned Decision was a cock-up, legally, and shouldn't have happened. And it may yet result in Bruyneel and the others getting off, at least in the sense that the verdict could be set aside. It's extremely unlikely that any of them could work in cycling again. However, the medics involved could (and should) find themselves up against misconduct proceedings within their own professional realm, and that process would fail if the USADA verdict was overturned. That's why it's so important that not only the right verdict is arrived at, but that it's arrived at in the right way.

WTF are you talking about " a properly neutral court"?

One that is nothing to do with sport. WTF do you think I mean?

[sg37409]

USADA may get away with their sloppiness this time, but I hope they learn the lesson that they can't afford to fuck up the legal stuff if they want to clean up sport properly.

Its USADA who we can thank for cleaning up cycling properly.   Other agencies have failed to do this.  Any debate on whether they have fucked up on any legal process in the course of rooting out this shit at the highest level is small beer to the fact these guys are now out the sport.

[citoyen]

sg37409 - Tim is right to be concerned - up to a point. It would be awful if Bruyneel got his ban overturned on a technicality. However, I think his fears are misplaced, based on my understanding of the case as I have been following it for the past two years.

[Hot Flatus]

I got the feeling during the case that the leaks may have been deliberate as a tactic to ensure public interest and scrutiny was maintained.


Remember that the Novitsky investigation was suddenly shut down by Birotte. Don't think USADA wanted LA to get away with using his contacts again.....

[Rich753]

The fact that the Panel itself raised the issue of confidentiality and then says something to the effect of, 'actually, it's ok 'cos we're good chaps really and we didn't think he was a guilty bastard before we reviewed the case' does not affect Bruyneel's right or capability of questioning the process in front of a properly neutral court. Whether he will or not is probably a matter of cash. The fact remains that USADA's open naming of other people in the Reasoned Decision was a cock-up, legally, and shouldn't have happened. And it may yet result in Bruyneel and the others getting off, at least in the sense that the verdict could be set aside. It's extremely unlikely that any of them could work in cycling again. However, the medics involved could (and should) find themselves up against misconduct proceedings within their own professional realm, and that process would fail if the USADA verdict was overturned. That's why it's so important that not only the right verdict is arrived at, but that it's arrived at in the right way.

WTF are you talking about " a properly neutral court"?

One that is nothing to do with sport. WTF do you think I mean?

I had, and still have, no idea what you mean by a "properly neutral court".  You seem to suggest that the American Arbitration Association is not a properly neutral court, is that really what you mean? 

[TimC]

I have some reservation about their neutrality, yes. They acknowledged the potential for the naming of Buyneel and the others in the Reasoned Decision to be an issue, and then dismissed it. I think they may have dismissed it rather too easily. Whether that's a lack of neutrality or simply a rather different perception than mine of the need for confidentiality is perhaps moot, but I worry that another court may have found differently. My concern, as Citoyen has rightly interpreted, is that there exists a potential loophole for Bruyneel and the others to exploit and have the verdict annulled. I very much hope that's not the case, but it's concerning that the opportunity was ever made possible by USADA's apparently poor grasp of the requirement for confidentiality over cases yet (at that time) to be heard. It's also very surprising that their legal experts didn't intercept the document and remove the names before publication, which would have avoided the problem in the first place.

[Rich753]

I have some reservation about their neutrality, yes.

What reservations do you have about their neutrality?  In what way have they displayed any partisanship?

[TimC]

By discounting USADA's failure to protect confidentiality. I think another court (or even the same one on another day) may have come to a different conclusion. However, they are a bit between a rock and a hard place. Do they overturn the verdict themselves on the basis that the loss of confidentiality negates the fair trial (which I believe to be the case), or do they just reduce the sentence in the hope that it won't be legally challenged and that the desired end result will be achieved? It may work, but it's a risky strategy I think. I would be delighted to hear a lawyer's view of it.

[Rich753]

By discounting USADA's failure to protect confidentiality. I think another court (or even the same one on another day) may have come to a different conclusion. However, they are a bit between a rock and a hard place. Do they overturn the verdict themselves on the basis that the loss of confidentiality negates the fair trial (which I believe to be the case), or do they just reduce the sentence in the hope that it won't be legally challenged and that the desired end result will be achieved? It may work, but it's a risky strategy I think. I would be delighted to hear a lawyer's view of it.

They didn't discount any failure, they explicitly noted it and took it into account when passing judgement. 

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, but you have accused the panel of lacking neutrality  and provided not a shred of evidence of their displaying partisanship.

I suggest that it is significant that Bruyneel himself seems to believe that his only possibility of appeal is to challenge the jurisdiction of USADA.

 

[TimC]

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion,

I am.

[citoyen]

These are an interesting couple of paragraphs in the AAA's verdict:

73. Certain Respondents presented evidence, which was not refuted by USADA, that they faced considerable legal proceedings in other jurisdictions and that their testimony here could work an unreasonable hardship or prejudice to their defense of those actions. In the case of Mr. Bruyneel, he is a named co-defendant in a qui tam action being prosecuted on behalf of the United States government by one of the witnesses in this action, Floyd Landis, who is a named plaintiff in that action. In that action, Mr. Bruyneel faces a claim of over USD$100 million, and he has not yet testified in the case. In the case of Mr. Martí, he is the subject of a criminal investigation into possible doping in Spain.
74. The legal proceedings against Mr. Bruyneel and Mr. Martí could justify their failure to testify despite USADA’s request that they do so. However, in light of the substantial evidence that USADA presented against them, as described more fully below, the Panel is convinced that they committed anti-doping violations without drawing any adverse inference from their failure to testify. Therefore, the Panel does not need to rule on whether an adverse inference should be made, and the Panel has declined to draw an adverse inference against any Respondent.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Ex-professionals caught doping in McDonald's car park
I liked this comment:
This is very wrong. So very wrong.

a) McDonalds. OFFS.
b) And he arrived by car.

Of course, if he had cycled the 200km there and back by back by bike, and done the buy in a restaurant or a cafe, it still would have been wrong. But at least be wrong in style.


(well, I like it apart from the phrase "done the buy")
As he's banned from professional racing till 2024, it makes you wonder whether he's doping for 'Gran Fondo' races - which seems to be essentially vanity doping - or selling them on to other pros.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Or aiming to set record times for iconic climbs, just for laughs.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Doping for Strava!

[spesh]

Riccardo Riccò? Well, there's a surprise... 

It would be funny were it not for the fact that he's obviously got problems - ISTR he almost killed himself via a remarkably cack-handed attempt at blood doping.

[TimC]

Or aiming to set record times for iconic climbs, just for laughs.

I think Italian Gran Fondos are (at the front of the field) competitive events in which several ex-pros make a reasonable living. They aren't very closely related to UK-stylee sportives. Strava KOMs and plastic medals are not the pinnacle of the rewards at stake...

[LittleWheelsandBig]

I know that Gran Fondos can be worth serious money but Ricco also suggested that he wanted to set a record time up Ventoux.

[Rhys W]

Well, if he really wants to set the record...

[sg37409]

He's been subpoenaed now
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-armstrong-subpoenaed-for-video-testimony-in-sca-promotions-lawsuit
Dont really know what this will end up achieving.

[Andrew]

Dont really know what this will end up achieving.

It could be valuable evidence in the whistleblower trial for one thing.

[woollypigs]

Oh he is talking *cough*bullshit*cough* http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/28362016

And many of the other winners are saying that he should keep his winnings - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/tour-de-france/10972429/Lance-Armstrongs-Tour-de-France-victories-should-stand-say-former-champions.html

[clarion]

I wonder why?

[mattc]

I wonder why?

Hard to say:
Mandy Schleck & Federico Bahamontes are from very different eras, and "won" in rather different ways!

What do you think?

[Andrew]

I think everyone's entitled to their opinion. I think that's pretty much all there is to say about it though.