Bye Lance

[citoyen]

Your scepticism is understandable.

[TimC]

We just want to make sure that they don't give the slimy turds the slimy turding room to slimy turd their way out of the slimy turd pile they are in

Don't worry. It won't happen. Travis Tygart is a beacon of righteousness and probity. There is no doubt about the soundness of the case against Bruyneel.

It's not the case that I am questioning. It is the process by which the punishment is determined and delivered. If there is the opportunity to legally exploit vulnerabilities in the process, then the soundness of the case will be totally irrelevant.

[citoyen]

If there is the opportunity to legally exploit vulnerabilities in the process, then the soundness of the case will be totally irrelevant.

Useful reading on this subject:
http://inrng.com/2014/04/bruyneel-banned-usada-contador-marti/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+inrng%2Finrng0+%28The+Inner+Ring%29

[citoyen]

This piece, which is linked to in the aforementioned Inrng article, is interesting -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/other_international/pakistan/6260498.stm

In theory, the UCI could follow the PCB's lead and refuse to recognise the sentence handed down by WADA, thus letting Bruyneel and Armstrong off the hook. However, this is highly unlikely for many reasons, not least the new leadership at the UCI - Cookson was elected on an anti-doping platform. There's also the status of cycling as a member of the IOC, which would be seriously jeopardised by any action that goes against WADA. Also, the PCB isn't a WADA signatory and the UCI is.

[LEE]

10 year ban for Bruyneel.  He has received the decision with somewhat less than good grace:
http://www.johanbruyneel.com/blog/article/statement-johan-bruyneel-regarding-aaa-decision/

Dear Johan. 
Stop whining.
You did wrong and helped to bring a sport into total and global disrespect.
Just because others haven't been punished as much as you doesn't mean you should be punished less, it means the others should be punished more.
Spend your free time thinking about the damage you did to the sport.
When was your name never not linked to a scandal?
Your name was mentioned, for years, as much as some top riders, and never for good reasons.
Basically though..stop whining and do something to help the sport instead.

[LittleWheelsandBig]

Given the amount LA spent on lawyers but failed to dodge the ban, despite also having the UCI and a US senator trying to stop the Yanks, I think their case against Bruyneel will be bulletproof.

[mattc]

Let me get this right (it's important that everyone involved knows the rules):
You're willing to bet me that £80,000 is millions of euros ?

This is silly even by your standards, matt. Sorry if my point went over your head.

Actually I think MY point went over your head.

If you read it properly you should see that it's not silly at all. For easy reference:

Different requirements, burdens and standards? Really? Seems to me that any verdict and penalties must be legally sound or they risk being successfully challenged in a court of law.

Exactly. You can have what rules you like in the playground, but things get serious in the real world.

For example, you can't fine someone millions of euros just beacuse they didn't wear the sponsor's shirt, and it's "in the rules".

[Andrew]

JB is not being deprived of earning a living. McD's are always in need of burger flippers.

USADA are not incarcerating him (they have no power to do so). Think of JB as being struck off, much as the BMA might do a doctor - after due process has been followed obviously. JB can question the due process (as LA did but the Texas courts found no fault with the USADA process, albeit with a caveat or two) but he'll get nowhere questioning USADA's authority.

[mattc]

<snip>*

USADA are not incarcerating him (they have no power to do so). Think of JB as being struck off, much as the BMA might do a doctor - after due process has been followed obviously. JB can question the due process (as LA did but the Texas courts found no fault with the USADA process, albeit with a caveat or two) but he'll get nowhere questioning USADA's authority.

I agree.*

As some us (including, I think TimC) are saying, "due process" is all-important. That can be challenged.

The BMA is another good example - if I were struck off unfairly (perhaps by a couple of disgruntled ex-colleagues)  I could challenge the decision in the courts.

(and of course the BMA cannot stop me playing professional football!)

_{*except perhaps with this bit:
"JB is not being deprived of earning a living. McD's are always in need of burger flippers." But this is off the main point, so it can wait ...}

[Hot Flatus]

Look, people, if any of you think USADA and/or WADA are the bad guys in this case, you really need to take a long, hard look at yourself.

I know where you've been looking

[citoyen]

Anyone genuinely interested in matters of procedure and jurisdiction as they relate to this case should read this:
http://www.usada.org/uploads/aaa42214.pdf

[Hot Flatus]

Maybe....but you've been in The Clinic 

[citoyen]

Maybe....but you've been in The Clinic 

I have never tested positive for visits to The Clinic!

(I got the link elsewhere, though my source may well have got it from The Clinic.)

[pdm]

The BMA is another good example - if I were struck off unfairly (perhaps by a couple of disgruntled ex-colleagues)  I could challenge the decision in the courts.

(and of course the BMA cannot stop me playing professional football!)

[off topic pedantry]  The BMA is a union representing doctors. The GMC (General Medical Council) is the quango that registers and can therefore "strike off" doctors. [/off topic pedantry]

[Jakob]

Out of interest, I've just done a bit of googling to find miscarriages of justice in anti-doping cases. One name that came up was baseball star Ryan Braun, who tested positive for elevated testosterone and was given a 50 match ban, but had it overturned due to an irregularity in the testing procedure.

Of course, he was later banned again after it turned out he was involved in the Biogenesis scandal. Doh!

Not entirely correct. When the positive test was announced, Braun, went hard after the guy collecting the samples and basically got the test thrown out due to the 'test sample being mishandled'. He wasn't banned until the Biogenesis scandal, where he then admitted to doping (and falsely destroying the reputation of the guy handling his sample.
Because of that, he was suspended an additional 15 games in addition to the automatic 50 game suspension.
Unfortunately, it's not enough, as there's 162 games in a season and Braun still ended up making millions on his enhanced performance. Baseball is getting better at punishing dopers, but it's still not quite enough.
It's not as bad as NFL,though, where the players association keeps blocking any attempts to introduce testing, as they claim the procedures aren't reliable enough.

[Andrew]

[off topic pedantry]  The BMA is a union representing doctors. The GMC (General Medical Council) is the quango that registers and can therefore "strike off" doctors. [/off topic pedantry]

Sorry, my fault. It was I that said BMA. Only after posting did I read the earlier (yours?) post that gave the same analogy but with the correct body!

[citoyen]

Not entirely correct...

Thanks for the clarification. Interesting story.

[TimC]

Anyone genuinely interested in matters of procedure and jurisdiction as they relate to this case should read this:
http://www.usada.org/uploads/aaa42214.pdf

Very interesting reading. While it would seem that Bruyneel has no case re the rights of USADA to sanction him, the Arbitration Panel has serious reservations about USADA's failure to maintain confidentiality in respect of Bruyneel and the others in its 'reasoned decision' with respect to Armstrong. This is exactly the kind of failure which risks allowing Bruyneel and others to challenge the process in court, and effectively overturn the judgement on a technicality. It happens often enough in other cases where the evidence to convict is irreproachable, but the process of obtaining that evidence, delivering it, prosecuting the accused or convicting them has failed through careless observation of proper procedure.

I would say that at the very least, Bruyneel has a sufficiently credible case against USADA's failure to maintain appropriate confidentiality that he may well successfully argue in court that a fair trial was compromised, and its findings must therefore be set aside.

Once again, it's not enough to have incontrovertible evidence to support your allegations that someone has done wrong. You must scrupulously observe due process so that a judgement can be delivered and the sanctions be applied without being successfully challenged. It seems to me that USADA have fallen short of the required standards, and may end up failing to make the bans stick. Obviously no-one will employ these people in cycling again, but if this judgement is successfully challenged it opens the door to compensation claims which would totally negate justice. And that would be a proper fuck up.

[citoyen]

I would say that at the very least, Bruyneel has a sufficiently credible case against USADA's failure to maintain appropriate confidentiality that he may well successfully argue in court that a fair trial was compromised, and its findings must therefore be set aside.

It has been established that the breach of confidentiality did not compromise Bruyneel's right to a fair hearing. This is old news.

The problem is that Bruyneel's involvement was central to the USADA's case against Lance, so it was impossible for them to leave his name out of the Reasoned Decision. It wasn't a lapse in procedure so much as a necessary compromise.

[TimC]

I would say that at the very least, Bruyneel has a sufficiently credible case against USADA's failure to maintain appropriate confidentiality that he may well successfully argue in court that a fair trial was compromised, and its findings must therefore be set aside.

It has been established that the breach of confidentiality did not compromise Bruyneel's right to a fair hearing. This is old news.

The problem is that Bruyneel's involvement was central to the USADA's case against Lance, so it was impossible for them to leave his name out of the Reasoned Decision. It wasn't a lapse in procedure so much as a necessary compromise.

But the Arbitration Panel's judgement doesn't say that; it says that they have serious reservations about it, and that the Reasoned Decision could perfectly well have been delivered without naming those who were awaiting proceedings. That isn't a trivial thing, and whether it was a 'necessary compromise' or not is at least arguable - which means it's vulnerable to challenge. My reading of the Panel's judgement is that this was a fuck up and could undermine the whole shooting match (vis-a-vis Bruyneel, not Armstrong) should Bruyneel have the chutzpah to take them on.

[Rich753]

I would say that at the very least, Bruyneel has a sufficiently credible case against USADA's failure to maintain appropriate confidentiality that he may well successfully argue in court that a fair trial was compromised, and its findings must therefore be set aside.

It has been established that the breach of confidentiality did not compromise Bruyneel's right to a fair hearing. This is old news.

The problem is that Bruyneel's involvement was central to the USADA's case against Lance, so it was impossible for them to leave his name out of the Reasoned Decision. It wasn't a lapse in procedure so much as a necessary compromise.

But the Arbitration Panel's judgement doesn't say that; it says that they have serious reservations about it, and that the Reasoned Decision could perfectly well have been delivered without naming those who were awaiting proceedings. That isn't a trivial thing, and whether it was a 'necessary compromise' or not is at least arguable - which means it's vulnerable to challenge. My reading of the Panel's judgement is that this was a fuck up and could undermine the whole shooting match (vis-a-vis Bruyneel, not Armstrong) should Bruyneel have the chutzpah to take them on.

So, having noted their serious reservations they still hit him with a 10 year ban - where is his room to appeal?  What challenge can he make?   That teh Arbitration panel made the wrong call, after considering all the evidence?   Why should any court come to a different conclusion?  He doesn't seem to have any new evidence to adduce, just wants a different verdict.

[TimC]

Just like any other legal or quasi-legal process, the grounds for appeal may be on the inadequate application of the process just as easily as on the evidence. Patently, Bruyneel has no grounds for appeal on the evidence, but as the Arbitration Panrel have expressed their reservations about USADA's handling of the process, specifically confidentiality, he may well have grounds to have the judgement overturned (either through CAS or through the civil courts) on the technical issue of the compromise of his right to a fair trial.

I would be very surprised if any court found that evidence trumps process. We regularly complain here when drivers are let off having KSId cyclists, or in general law, when the patently guilty are not convicted because of some failure of process. That could well be the case here; it doesn't matter how good the evidence is, if it can be shown that a fair trial was impossible due to USADA's lack of confidentiality, the conviction is unsound and will not stand (or wouldn't under criminal law).

[citoyen]

Despite the concerns raised by USADA’s disclosures, the Panel does not find that these disclosures undermine the Respondents’ right to a fair hearing in this proceeding since the disclosures have no bearing on the neutrality of the Panel.

[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.

[TimC]

Further reading tells me that the 10 year ban on Bruyneel (and 8 years for the doctors) is actually a reduction applied by the Arbitration Panel from the lifetime bans awarded by USADA, as a result of an appeal by Bruyneel (and the others) of the original USADA decision. I hadn't appreciated that. The reduction from lifetime to 10 ( years is, at least in part, due to the failure of USADA to maintain the required standard of confidentiality. Bruyneel could appeal further to the CAS, but it would be very expensive - especially if he lost. My gut feeling is that his legal grounds would be sound, but that the very high profile of the case, and the desire for sport to be seen to be doing something about the drugs problem, would go against him. Effectively the 'end' of getting doping stamped on would justify the 'means' of poor process. 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.