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

[Race Radio]

Interesting footnote

USADA also submitted witness statements from Ms. Betsy Andreu, Mr. Frank Andreu, Mr. MarcoConsonni, Mr. Renzo Ferrante, Mr. Jörg Jaksche, Ms. Emma O’Reilly, Mr. Jack Roberston, Mr. PaulScott, Mr. Jonathan Vaughters, and Mr. Jean-Pierre Verdy. USADA, however, failed to produce thesewitnesses at hearing for live testimony. Under Procedural Order No. 4, these witness statements were notadmissible evidence.

A couple of these witnesses, O'Reilly and Verdy, could have helped with the SOL tolling if the were able to present that the 99 positive for Cortisone was lying to an official inquiry. Ferrante could have helped with the possession charge

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Ah, the Hardie stuff is the Leipheimer/Landis said part of the Celaya section of the decision.

Even without the email issue it's hard to see that claim getting Celaya off.

 

[fmk_RoI]

A couple of these witnesses, O'Reilly and Verdy, could have helped with the SOL tolling if the were able to present that the 99 positive for Cortisone was lying to an official inquiry. Ferrante could have helped with the possession charge

The number of blows landed on USADA is worthing totting up (and both sides got hit by the diff between written testimony and real testimony). Sure, they'll be forgotten quicker than that Texas judge's criticisms were, but they're worth noting. At the end of the day, USADA only had three witnesses taking Bruyneel down. Think about that: three witnesses for Bruyneel, 1,000 pages for LA.

 

[Race Radio]

The number of blows landed on USADA is worthing totting up (and both sides got hit by the diff between written testimony and real testimony). Sure, they'll be forgotten quicker than that Texas judge's criticisms were, but they're worth noting. At the end of the day, USADA only had three witnesses taking Bruyneel down. Think about that: three witnesses for Bruyneel, 1,000 pages for LA.

Most of the Texas judge's critique was due to lack of knowledge of the subject matter then actual issues.

The level of evidence is a key point. In a normal court room these three would be more then enough but we have to remember the WADA jurisdiction over cycling is less then 10 years old. With each case additional precedence is set. The level of evidence, tolling the SOL, etc. If makes each additional case easier.

If I was Riis or Saronni I would be very concerned

 

[fmk_RoI]

This criticism of the LA Reasoned Decision is worth noting:

The Panel finds the extent of USADA’s disclosures troubling. While the Panel recognizes that the applicable disclosure provisions allow USADA to comment on established anti-doping violations, the Panel also notes that USADA and other ADOs nonetheless have obligations to exercise restraint in making such disclosures when faced with facts that concern the merits of a parallel proceeding that is ongoing. To determine otherwise would undermine the confidentiality obligations in the UCI ADR, the Code, and the Protocol. The Panel additionally observes that USADA redacted some of the names in its reasoned decision and could potentially have redacted the names of the Respondents as well without altering the character or nature of the allegations made and the nature of the anti-doping rule violations established against Lance Armstrong. That it might have been difficult or would have taken away from the nature of the allegations against or reasoning related to Mr. Armstrong’s case is of no moment, because a separate confidentiality obligation exists under the UCI ADR, Code, and Protocol as to each person accused in an anti-doping process. Accordingly, the Panel finds that USADA violated the applicable confidentiality provisions of the UCI ADR, the Code, and the Protocol.

 

[MarkvW]

The Armstrong case may be precedent for what USADA does, but it is zero precedent for what a future arbitration panel is going to do.

And the federal judge had a very good idea of what due process requires. The WADA Code is a classic example of working conditions that an employer can force upon relatively powerless employees.

 

[MacRoadie]

going down with the ship was obviously the wrong move. But does that make them any worse than those who testified?

I just think its a joke that JV & friends got away with it so easily. They were all dopers, some just chose the wrong strategy, and some were bigger tools than others.

2009 called.

It wants its clinic post back...

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Race Radio;1445604

"... but we have to remember the WADA jurisdiction over cycling is less then 10 years old.

RR WADA does not have jurisdiction over cycling. All WADA does is make the anti-doping rules. And they make the anti-doping rules because people in the IOC saw a need for an independent body other than the IOC to make the rules. They are the rules for all Olympic sports as you well know. not just cycling.

WADA does not discipline. In cycling it is the UCI or the national ADAs that discipline.

They don't make rules about not drafting, holding onto car doors, the weight of grand tour bikes etc., etc., Lets get some perspective here.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This criticism of the LA Reasoned Decision is worth noting:

Doping apologist to the end...

 

[Race Radio]

RR WADA does not have jurisdiction over cycling. All WADA does is make the anti-doping rules. And they make the anti-doping rules because people in the IOC saw a need for an independent body other than the IOC to make the rules. They are the rules for all Olympic sports as you well know. not just cycling.

WADA does not discipline. In cycling it is the UCI or the national ADAs that discipline.

They don't make rules about not drafting, holding onto car doors, the weight of grand tour bikes etc., etc., Lets get some perspective here.

What is your point?

Cycling has to follow the WADA code......the code that outlines the testing, process, and sanctioning. The code that every rider signs. You can get stuck on semantics if you like.

 

[Granville57]

What is your point?

A concise answer to that arriving...never.

 

[babastooey]

I still haven't read the AAA document yet, I haven't had time. But this decision is really getting me confused. A little less than 2 years ago, USADA gave Bruyneel a lifetime ban. He appeals it, not on the grounds that it is excessive, but that it shouldn't apply at all because he's Belgian, or something. Did he dispute the facts of USADA's case, or did he simply play the jurisdiction card?

If all he did was play the "I'm Belgian" card, the logical choice of the AAA would be to uphold the ban if USADA is found to have jurisdiction, or to remove the ban completely if they do not. I do not see 10 years as splitting some kind of difference. Could he now go to CAS and get it reduced further for no reason? Is that really good for the sport?

If this is not simply a matter of jurisdiction, does this mean that USADA's case isn't strong enough to prove Bruyneel deserves a life ban? What does this mean for Armstrong? Does he deserve a life ban? Was he foolish not to fight it?

This all seems like a troubling turn of events, really. Are these people serious about eliminating drugs from sport, or aren't they?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

What is your point?

Cycling has to follow the WADA code......the code that outlines the testing, process, and sanctioning. The code that every rider signs. You can get stuck on semantics if you like.

My point is WADA does not control cycling as you seem to think. WADA has one rule - don't dope. It seems to me it is a pretty simple rule that most of us in the Clinic agree with. But to suggest WADA creates slave labour like working conditions is inaccurate.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

babastooey;1445701

A little less than 2 years ago, USADA gave Bruyneel a lifetime ban.

You are very confused. USADA never gave Bruyneel a lifetime ban two years ago. They did give Armstrong a lifetime ban 1 and 1/2 years ago.

The present ban to Bruyneel is not the decision of USADA but the AAA arbitration panel who heard JBs case, and in their wisdom he was banned for 10 years from the date USADA brought a violation charge against him.

He has the right to appeal this to the CAS. but it remains to be seen if he will.

Sheesh!

 

[RobbieCanuck]

A concise answer to that arriving...never.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Race Radio View Post
What is your point?

Cycling has to follow the WADA code......the code that outlines the testing, process, and sanctioning. The code that every rider signs. You can get stuck on semantics if you like.



My point is WADA does not control cycling as you seem to think. WADA has one rule - don't dope. It seems to me it is a pretty simple rule that most of us in the Clinic agree with. But to suggest WADA creates slave labour like working conditions is inaccurate.


Concise enough for you? Don't ever let thoroughness get in the way of your making an argument.

 

[Race Radio]

My point is WADA does not control cycling as you seem to think. WADA has one rule - don't dope. It seems to me it is a pretty simple rule that most of us in the Clinic agree with. But to suggest WADA creates slave labour like working conditions is inaccurate.

Slave labor working conditions? What?

WADA code is much more then "Don't dope". It is 135 pages

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...DP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

 

[Race Radio]

I still haven't read the AAA document yet, I haven't had time.

Read it, it will answer all your questions

 

[gooner]

Juliet Macur has just written about this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/s...n-doping-punishments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Slave labor working conditions? What?

WADA code is much more then "Don't dope". It is 135 pages

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/W...DP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf

I thought you made a comment a bit back that the effect of the WADA code was to impose stringent working conditions on cyclists, whereas it seemed to me "Don't dope" was not really a tough condition to work by. If I am wrong I apologize.


135 pages of "Don't dope." I have read the Code several times but most of it is really "Don't dope"

 

[Catwhoorg]

Its

Don't dope

Here is what counts as doping, here are the standard punishments

Here are our sample collection methods and standard we test to.

(and its changing (getting tougher) for 2015)

 

[Night Rider]

Martin Hardie's testimony.

Any comments, anyone?

comically bad.....as expected. Martin seems desperate to insert himself into things and then mess them up

Here's some more comedy about Martin Hardie. I don't think he has his own thread so rather than dig up the old "rider xyz" or "Trent Lowe" threads I will post here. Let me know if I need to move it elsewhere.

This clown Warwick Hadfield who allegedly has links with Hardie, stating "Wada has made it clear they would like to see Martin Hardie as head of ASADA" wtf? would like to see that link.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...e-to-replace-aurora-as-head-of-asada.1057776/
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2014/04/bst_20140411_0626.mp3 from about 0.40 seconds on and then the bit about Martin Hardie from 1.30

This comment sums it up on the first page ...

Bit late for April Fools day........

 

[masking_agent]

so can someone tell me how Bruyneel got a 10 year ban, while Lance got a lifetime ban ?

That does not make sense to me ?

I thought for sure he would get the "Ferrari" treatment..

 

[RobbieCanuck]

so can someone tell me how Bruyneel got a 10 year ban, while Lance got a lifetime ban ?

That does not make sense to me ?

I thought for sure he would get the "Ferrari" treatment..

The simple answer is the differences in the proceedings.

LA you will recall refused to participate in the USADA case against him and go to arbitration. As a result under USADA rules it was USADA who was required to impose the sanction and provide a reasoned decision for their actions. USADA felt LA's doping program was the most sophisticated ever and LA's conduct in implementing it and carrying it out for so long warranted a lifetime ban.

In Bruyneels case he agreed to go to arbitration so there was an arbitration hearing. That removed USADA from being the institution that imposed the sanction and transferred that responsibility to the AAA Arbitration Panel. At the arbitration hearing USADA argued the Panel should give Bruyneel a life time ban, but after hearing all the submissions the Panel settled on 10 years.

Your best bet is to read the decision of the Arbitration Panel for their reasons why they thought 10 years was appropriate. The link is http://www.usada.org/arbitration-decisions/.

 

[babastooey]

USADA never gave Bruyneel a lifetime ban two years ago. They did give Armstrong a lifetime ban 1 and 1/2 years ago.

I was being approximate on the two years thing.

Timeline:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ferrari-del-moral-and-marti-banned-for-life-in-us-postal-case

Ferrari, del Moral, and Marti all get life bans on July 10, 2012. USADA also announces that Armstrong, Bruyneel, and Celaya all want extensions because they either want arbitration or 5 days to just "figure stuff out."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-to-fight-usada-charges

Bruyneel almost immediately responds that he is going to the AAA. The article makes it clear that if the AAA rules in USADA's favor, he is gone for life. USADA argued in front of the AAA that he should be banned for life. If Johan didn't fight it, he would have been banned for life. I can't stress enough how clear that is.

Apparently either Marti changed his mind and wanted arbitration, or Cyclingnews got it wrong in their story from July 10. Celaya also opted for arbitation. The Lance news dropped in August 2012 of course, and of course the fate of Bruyneel was also determined very recently. Celaya and Marti get 8 years.

I get the impression that the AAA doesn't care about doping and would have probably shortened Lance, Ferrari, del Moral to 8-10 as well, if they would have only fought it. The logic here is that if you fight something, however you do it, whether you are guilty of what you are accused of or not, they cut the baby in half and you get a reduced sentence which in someone's mind seems like the fair thing to do.

The worst part about it is that these guys can get a second appeal if they want it. They can still go to CAS. And why wouldn't they, if the behavior of the AAA is any indication? How are you guys going to react if Johan goes to CAS and states his jurisdiction argument again, and they decide to cut the half baby in half again and he ends up with 5 years? We could have liars and cheats with no respect for the rules back into the sport within 3 years, because they are backdating his ban to 2012. And people will argue that he has served his time and we should get off his back. Is anyone else upset about this? The worst part is, that people are put in charge to try to take this stuff out of the sport, yet the system is so easily worked by the cheaters. Weren't you guys so happy to see Vino win Olympic gold or Valverde win Fleche Wallone?

We are like an entire generation of the chosen people wandering for 40 years in the doping desert. No one from this present generation is going to see the promised land, because we haven't done enough to get doping out of sport. We try to support people who say they are getting it out, but it isn't good enough. The worst part is, it wouldn't be super difficult to make the change. The change can happen if we want it, but so far, I'm not convinced that people really want it.

The biggest fool in this whole mess is Lance Armstrong. He could have been riding senior men's triathalons 6-8 years from now, but he chose not to fight it. Stupid, stupid Lance. The world hasn't changed, he thought it had.

 

[D-Queued]

I was being approximate on the two years thing.

Timeline:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ferrari-del-moral-and-marti-banned-for-life-in-us-postal-case

Ferrari, del Moral, and Marti all get life bans on July 10, 2012. USADA also announces that Armstrong, Bruyneel, and Celaya all want extensions because they either want arbitration or 5 days to just "figure stuff out."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bruyneel-to-fight-usada-charges

Bruyneel almost immediately responds that he is going to the AAA. The article makes it clear that if the AAA rules in USADA's favor, he is gone for life. USADA argued in front of the AAA that he should be banned for life. If Johan didn't fight it, he would have been banned for life. I can't stress enough how clear that is.

Apparently either Marti changed his mind and wanted arbitration, or Cyclingnews got it wrong in their story from July 10. Celaya also opted for arbitation. The Lance news dropped in August 2012 of course, and of course the fate of Bruyneel was also determined very recently. Celaya and Marti get 8 years.

I get the impression that the AAA doesn't care about doping and would have probably shortened Lance, Ferrari, del Moral to 8-10 as well, if they would have only fought it. The logic here is that if you fight something, however you do it, whether you are guilty of what you are accused of or not, they cut the baby in half and you get a reduced sentence which in someone's mind seems like the fair thing to do.

The worst part about it is that these guys can get a second appeal if they want it. They can still go to CAS. And why wouldn't they, if the behavior of the AAA is any indication? How are you guys going to react if Johan goes to CAS and states his jurisdiction argument again, and they decide to cut the half baby in half again and he ends up with 5 years? We could have liars and cheats with no respect for the rules back into the sport within 3 years, because they are backdating his ban to 2012. And people will argue that he has served his time and we should get off his back. Is anyone else upset about this? The worst part is, that people are put in charge to try to take this stuff out of the sport, yet the system is so easily worked by the cheaters. Weren't you guys so happy to see Vino win Olympic gold or Valverde win Fleche Wallone?

We are like an entire generation of the chosen people wandering for 40 years in the doping desert. No one from this present generation is going to see the promised land, because we haven't done enough to get doping out of sport. We try to support people who say they are getting it out, but it isn't good enough. The worst part is, it wouldn't be super difficult to make the change. The change can happen if we want it, but so far, I'm not convinced that people really want it.

The biggest fool in this whole mess is Lance Armstrong. He could have been riding senior men's triathalons 6-8 years from now, but he chose not to fight it. Stupid, stupid Lance. The world hasn't changed, he thought it had.

On #1, it is surprising in retrospect that he didn't elect to take that one step given how he has done absolutely everything else.

Then again, if he went to arbitration he may have had to testify. That wouldn't have looked good.

On #2, it was never about racing Triathlons. It is only about sponsorships and preserving his illegal gotten gains.

But, you are right, stupid stupid Lance.

How much money has he thrown at a losing cause (Rhetorical question and not a thread jack... we have another thread to discuss that question)

Dave.