USADA - Bruyneel, Celaya, Garcial del Moral, Ferrari, Marti

[Race Radio]

The award makes clear why USADA has jurisdiction. This has been covered over and over in multiple cases......but Johan still thought he had a case? Foolish

Mr. Bruyneel applied for and received a UCI license through his national federation in Belgium every year since 2005. As a license-holder, the UCI
ADR therefore apply to him under Article 1. It was further found that he has expressly consented to the rules and regulations of the UCI, including the UCI ADR. Article 11 of the UCI ADR provides that where no sample collection is involved and an anti-doping violation is involved which is discovered by a national anti-doping organization involving a license holder who is not a national, resident, license holder or member of a sports organization of that nation, resolution of the violation shall be administered by and under the rules of that national anti-doping organization. USADA is the anti-doping organization that discovered the alleged anti-doping violations by Mr. Bruyneel. The Panel found that, as a result, jurisdiction exists for USADA to proceed to prosecute the anti-doping violation charges against Mr. Bruyneel.

 

[Oldman]

Told you it was coming soon

Poor Johan. Mommy is going to be angry

BOOM!!! It's Tuesday!

 

[Race Radio]

Interesting that USADA did not reach all the way back like they did with lance

At the merits hearing, USADA chose to withdraw charges that predate 12 June 2004, except those presented to corroborate acts committed thereafter.

Which is why they only got 10 years and 8 years

 

[Benotti69]

Interesting that USADA did not reach all the way back like they did with lance



Which is why they only got 10 years and 8 years

Why did they stop at 2004?

Why only 10 years for a DS who presided over team doping from 1998 till 2010?

 

[Benotti69]

"I do not dispute that there are certain elements of my career that I wish had been different." Johan Bruyneel. "I think it may rain." Noah.

I think Bruyneel is look for 'backing' or he will throw everyone under the bus, Contador, Weisel, Hein, Pat, ASO...................

 

[Justinr]

I think Bruyneel is look for 'backing' or he will throw everyone under the bus, Contador, Weisel, Hein, Pat, ASO...................

Lets hope so

 

[Race Radio]

Why did they stop at 2004?

Why only 10 years for a DS who presided over team doping from 1998 till 2010?

Unlike Lance they had not yet had a chance to lie under oath so they did not toll the SOL.

Johan's defense is just odd. A complete waste of money. He did not testify or give any real evidence. Just babbled about jurisdictional nonsense that was easy to counter.

 

[Race Radio]

Tommy D is so threatening......scary guy, very intimidating

Dr. Celaya questioned Mr. Danielson’s motives for testifying, claiming that he thought Mr. Danielson “is resentful against me.”85 Here, Dr. Celaya pointed to an episode during the 2007 Vuelta Catalunya in which he alleges Mr. Danielson threatened him for not letting him participate in the race on account of his high hematocrit level

 

[Benotti69]

Unlike Lance they had not yet had a chance to lie under oath so they did not toll the SOL.

Still think lifetime ban was the order of the day.

Johan's defense is just odd. A complete waste of money. He did not testify or give any real evidence. Just babbled about jurisdictional nonsense that was easy to counter.

Does that imply he is out on his own and the 'threat' and his implied ""I think it may rain" also gives credence to being cut adrift and hence he will rain of people's parades.

 

[Race Radio]

Some comedy from Celaya. He included testimony from journalists who did not see him at a race, or giving riders drugs, so then it must not have happened.

it is also unavailing that Mr. Arribas, Mr. Bernaus Tarantino, and Mr. Urraburu did not see Dr. Celaya at the 2005 and 2006 Vueltas. The failure of these journalists to see Dr. Celaya during these races does not mean that he was not there. Indeed, it seems unlikely that these journalists would see Dr. Celaya at the Vueltas if (i) he only worked for the team for a few days per month and, (ii) as Mr. Danielson testified to, Dr. Celaya spent his time at the Vuelta administering doping products in a hotel room in which “the blinds would always be drawn.”

 

[Beech Mtn]

BOOM!!! It's Tuesday!

This is one of those times the forum really needs a "like" button.

 

[Beech Mtn]

What exactly is your point as you seem to be making conflicting points at the beginning and the end of your post (see bolded)?

I think this has been discussed in one of the many Armstrong-threads that under the WADA-code the ADA that actually discovers the violation has jurisprudence over it. In this case it was USADA who first learned about it through Landis and therefore has jurisdiction. If other people have a more detailed recollection, please feel free to add your thoughts.

This is correct. Under both WADA Code and UCI ADR, USADA totes has jurisdiction over Johan, Celaya, Ferrari, and anybody else Floyd blew the whistle on.

 

[Hemassist]

8 year bans for Celaya and Marti.

http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=4580

Originally posted by by Dimspace, and applicable again (good god I love this video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o80t-cBLncM

 

[Beech Mtn]

Interesting that USADA did not reach all the way back like they did with lance



Which is why they only got 10 years and 8 years

Tygart had said they weren't sure tolling SOL would stand up in arbitration (referring to Lance's case back when). Lance's own fault for taking his ball and going home instead of playing by the rules and putting up a proper defense. Only himself to blame for thinking the rules didn't apply to him and he could craft his own spin to taint the "USADA witch-hunt"

 

[D-Queued]

Tygart had said they weren't sure tolling SOL would stand up in arbitration (referring to Lance's case back when). Lance's own fault for taking his ball and going home instead of playing by the rules and putting up a proper defense. Only himself to blame for thinking the rules didn't apply to him and he could craft his own spin to taint the "USADA witch-hunt"

Based upon the sophisticated legal arguments presented by JB & Celaya, it isn't like there was any chance whatsoever they could have persuaded the Arbitrators even if the Arbitrators might have been open to such persuasion.

Just a bunch of dumb thugs.

Dave.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Based upon the sophisticated legal arguments presented by JB & Celaya, it isn't like there was any chance whatsoever they could have persuaded the Arbitrators even if the Arbitrators might have been open to such persuasion.

Just a bunch of dumb thugs.

Dave.

LOL, I particularly enjoy Celaya's "journalist defense." If Sky ever gets popped, maybe some day Leinders can call in Walsh to testify on his behalf

 

[ChewbaccaD]

LOL, I particularly enjoy Celaya's "journalist defense." If Sky ever gets popped, maybe some day Leinders can call in Walsh to testify on his behalf

Almost nobody saw Froome anywhere the year before he placed at the Vuelta...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

What exactly is your point as you seem to be making conflicting points at the beginning and the end of your post (see bolded)?

I think this has been discussed in one of the many Armstrong-threads that under the WADA-code the ADA that actually discovers the violation has jurisdiction over it. In this case it was USADA who first learned about it through Landis and therefore has jurisdiction. If other people have a more detailed recollection, please feel free to add your thoughts.

You are exactly right. Clearly the UCI ADR gives USADA jurisdiction. That is why I said Bruyneel may have a good argument and I prefaced my comments to the effect I had not as yet read the AAA decision (I have not as yet read the AAA decision)

My comments were prefaced on the assumption that USADA had to find jurisdiction within its own Protocol.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

He has no argument. This has been proven over and over. Didn't work with Valverde and will not work with Johan.

Yep. You are exactly right. Now that I have read the decision it is clear the UCI ADR give USADA jurisdiction. That is why I said Bruyneel may have a good argument and I prefaced my comments to the effect I had not as yet read the AAA decision
(I have not as yet read the AAA decision)

My comments were prefaced on the assumption that USADA had to find jurisdiction within its own Protocol.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Interesting that USADA did not reach all the way back like they did with lance. Which is why they only got 10 years and 8 years

Yes and no. USADA did not need to go back before 2004 because they had enough evidence from 2004 on. And the AAA panel ruled they could use pre 2004 evidence to corroborate post 2004 evidence, so the evidence from the pre 2004 violations was still admissible and relevant as corroboration.

As to the penalty, I suspect the AAA did not find the same degree of culpability as USADA did with Lance even though JB was at the apex. Lance had used Livestrong to line his own pockets. The AAA may have had sympathy for JBs financial position. He certainly did not profit like LA or use a vehicle like Livestrong to commit fraud.

 

[frenchfry]

Good news that this world-class scumbag is out of the sport for a long time. What a loser crying that he received unfair treatment. He is getting what he deserves, and even then he deserves worse.

 

[Race Radio]

Team Tinkoff-Saxo on Pepe Marti:

"We are not going to comment on this. He was never with the team."

 

[DirtyWorks]

Good news that this world-class scumbag is out of the sport for a long time. What a loser crying that he received unfair treatment. He is getting what he deserves, and even then he deserves worse.

Are you sure about that? He's probably quite well off. I'd be happier if he has to work at the Aldi's to keep a roof over his head.

The phrase "crime pays" fits pretty well.

 

[the sceptic]

evil dopers: 8 years to life
good dopers: 6 months in the off season

sounds about right. cycling continues to be a joke.

 

[babastooey]

I've never even heard of the AAA before today. If you had asked me yesterday, I would have told you it was car insurance or a New Deal era program or something.

Why do they have jurisdiction in the case of Bruyneel and not USADA? Why didn't USADA simply impose their ban and then that was it?

Why on earth should Bruyneels ban be shorter than Armstrong's??? His is shorter because he fought it with more enthusiasm? Really?

So if Bruyneel takes it to CAS and gets it reduces further, then he gets two bites at the apple? Does this system make sense to anyone else?

The Protour teams and UCI should do an end run around this and announce that they will collude and refuse to hire any banned riders or directors for a period equal to the length of their suspension after their suspension is completed. Therefore, 20 years without Bruyneel, and he will simply disappear (he has already, it seems).