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

[blackcat]

Enough of that line of discussion.

Susan

no worries susan, we will use semiotics

cheers
blackcat

 

[Benotti69]

Is the silence from USADA good news or bad news. Is Bruyneel spilling his guts and USADA not leaking anything or is nothing happening therefore no news.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Is the silence from USADA good news or bad news. Is Bruyneel spilling his guts and USADA not leaking anything or is nothing happening therefore no news.

Judging by the previously successful delay tactics, I'd say there's more delaying.

"I'm sorry I can't hear you." "Hmm are you sure this microphone is working?" "I have to take this urgent call."

 

[Benotti69]

Judging by the previously successful delay tactics, I'd say there's more delaying.

"I'm sorry I can't hear you." "Hmm are you sure this microphone is working?" "I have to take this urgent call."

Well i expect those due in front of USADA to be doing everything they can to delay the hearings, but I would've expected some info released from USADA, even just the names of those who attended.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Well i expect those due in front of USADA to be doing everything they can to delay the hearings, but I would've expected some info released from USADA, even just the names of those who attended.

That's not the anti-doping way. Every detail covered, managed messages from both parties, minimal controversy is the anti-doping way.

 

[robow7]

Do you think the details and evidence submitted will ever be made public, or at least leaked slowly as time goes by?

 

[Benotti69]

Do you think the details and evidence submitted will ever be made public, or at least leaked slowly as time goes by?

Bruyneel will do a tell all book when he needs the funds. Whether anyone will be interested by then is hard to tell.

 

[BroDeal]

What happens when Bruyneel challenges the case against him purely on procedural grounds by attacking the tolling of the SOL and whether a lifetime ban is suitable in his case? Many of the riders who will testify against him left Postal outside of the SOL. The 1999 corticosteroid positive was put under the rug with the knowledge and assistance of the UCI, so it was not hidden from authorities. The tolling of the SOL came from an American court ruling but what are the chances that the Europeans will not accept it?

Will we see Bruyneel get banned for only two or four years?

 

[Benotti69]

What happens when Bruyneel challenges the case against him purely on procedural grounds by attacking the tolling of the SOL and whether a lifetime ban is suitable in his case? Many of the riders who will testify against him left Postal outside of the SOL. The 1999 corticosteroid positive was put under the rug with the knowledge and assistance of the UCI, so it was not hidden from authorities. The tolling of the SOL came from an American court ruling but what are the chances that the Europeans will not accept it?

Will we see Bruyneel get banned for only two or four years?

Apparently Bruyneel is not attending but his legal representatives are there.

 

[Morbius]

What happens when Bruyneel challenges the case against him purely on procedural grounds by attacking the tolling of the SOL and whether a lifetime ban is suitable in his case?

very possible. The judge in Texas said the first place to argue SOL was the arbitration panel, after which it could potentially be appealed. I image Bruyneel will want that argument to be completed before moving to issues of actual doping.

Edit: Scrap that last thought - apparently witnesses have been testifying already

 

[blackcat]

no worries susan, we will use semiotics

cheers
blackcat

what about wingdings?. yeah, that will work.

 

[ebandit]

read all about it

so no news?

how long 'til we hear johan 'why have I been treated harsher than others'.
............. the apology tour?

Mark L

 

[Benotti69]

so no news?

how long 'til we hear johan 'why have I been treated harsher than others'.
............. the apology tour?

Mark L

Race Radio ‏@TheRaceRadio 20h
Bruyneel's arbitration is finished. Johan, Pepe, and Pedro let their lawyers handle the case

Only news i have seen.

 

[ebandit]

ta

thanks! benny............I failed to find anything from a quick google

Mark L

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Do you think the details and evidence submitted will ever be made public, or at least leaked slowly as time goes by?

Yes, USADA issues the results of its hearings with a written decision from the Arbitrators. This is not a reasoned decision case because the hearing proceeded.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

What happens when Bruyneel challenges the case against him purely on procedural grounds by attacking the tolling of the SOL and whether a lifetime ban is suitable in his case? Many of the riders who will testify against him left Postal outside of the SOL. The 1999 corticosteroid positive was put under the rug with the knowledge and assistance of the UCI, so it was not hidden from authorities. The tolling of the SOL came from an American court ruling but what are the chances that the Europeans will not accept it?

Will we see Bruyneel get banned for only two or four years?

The argument being used by USADA is that there is no SOL for conspiracy cases. If the Arbitrator agrees Bruyneel is toast and he gets life in my view., because of the circumstances of the case. Bruyneel was just as active as Armstrong in the doping program.

If the USADA hearing finds Bruyneel guilty under WADA rules the whole world has to accept the ruling.

If the Arbitrators agree with Bruyneel it will open a huge can of worms. Time will tell!

 

[Morbius]

Both findings and SOL can be appealed to CAS, and to the US courts if there is an abuse of process (so said the judge in Texas). I'm not sure how this works though. Can the aribration publish a guilty finding on the facts at the same time as saying SOL does not apply, or does SOL have to complete the appeal process first?

 

[Ferminal]

If the SOL doesn't apply then you can't be "guilty" regardless of the "facts". To the best of my (limited) knowledge a case before CAS/TAS considers all aspects (i.e. they'd look at both a challenge to the SOL and the facts of the charge).

I think it would be interesting to see the SOL challenged, this would be unprecedented?

 

[MarkvW]

If the SOL doesn't apply then you can't be "guilty" regardless of the "facts". To the best of my (limited) knowledge a case before CAS/TAS considers all aspects (i.e. they'd look at both a challenge to the SOL and the facts of the charge).

I think it would be interesting to see the SOL challenged, this would be unprecedented?

SOL doesn't seem to be as much a deal for these guys. They have no 'results' in jeopardy. USADA's basic pitch is that they were running a drug delivery conspiracy. All USADA's got to do is prove that the conspiracy was in effect during the limitation period. If a lot of the conspiracy extended beyond the limitation, that shouldn't be a problem because proving a conspiracy to to deliver dope at any time ought to be good enough to get the maximum sanction. Besides, proof of the old stuff (outside the limitation period) ought to be admissible to prove the conspiracy occurring within the limitation period.

 

[BroDeal]

SOL doesn't seem to be as much a deal for these guys. They have no 'results' in jeopardy. USADA's basic pitch is that they were running a drug delivery conspiracy. All USADA's got to do is prove that the conspiracy was in effect during the limitation period. If a lot of the conspiracy extended beyond the limitation, that shouldn't be a problem because proving a conspiracy to to deliver dope at any time ought to be good enough to get the maximum sanction. Besides, proof of the old stuff (outside the limitation period) ought to be admissible to prove the conspiracy occurring within the limitation period.

It is a lot more complicated than that. WADA did not exist when the conspiracy started. The WADA code has been revised several times. It is only relatively recently that there was such a thing as a non-analytical positive. Without reading the various versions of the WADA code, I would guess that the section of the current code that USADA is relying on to bring the case (country that discovered a non-analytical positive gets to prosecute) did not exist in the early versions of the code. To toll the SOL, USADA relied on an American ruling for a case that involved lying during a doping arbitration; it was not based on conspiracy.

At the very least, Bruyneel can argue that any acts he committed have to be judged under the version of the rules that were in place at the time. He can then move onto arguing that USADA does not have authority to prosecute anything that happened during most of the years in question. Then it is on to whether the anti-doping rules should follow American law when it comes to a statute of limitations. He can argue that he did not deceive the UCI about Armstrong's 1999 positive because the UCI was not only fully aware but aided the supposed deception. He can challenge the suitability of a lifetime ban. Tygart's has acknowledged in his own words in multiple interviews that doping was endemic and commonplace in cycling during the years in question, so that might be used to argue against a harsher punishment than two years based on aggravating circumstances.

 

[MarkvW]

It is a lot more complicated than that. WADA did not exist when the conspiracy started. The WADA code has been revised several times. It is only relatively recently that there was such a thing as a non-analytical positive. Without reading the various versions of the WADA code, I would guess that the section of the current code that USADA is relying on to bring the case (country that discovered a non-analytical positive gets to prosecute) did not exist in the early versions of the code. To toll the SOL, USADA relied on an American ruling for a case that involved lying during a doping arbitration; it was not based on conspiracy.

At the very least, Bruyneel can argue that any acts he committed have to be judged under the version of the rules that were in place at the time. He can then move onto arguing that USADA does not have authority to prosecute anything that happened during most of the years in question. Then it is on to whether the anti-doping rules should follow American law when it comes to a statute of limitations. He can argue that he did not deceive the UCI about Armstrong's 1999 positive because the UCI was not only fully aware but aided the supposed deception. He can challenge the suitability of a lifetime ban. Tygart's has acknowledged in his own words in multiple interviews that doping was endemic and commonplace in cycling during the years in question, so that might be used to argue against a harsher punishment than two years based on aggravating circumstances.

My point is that tolling isn't that much of a big deal for these guys.

 

[ebandit]

?

after USADA was so forthcoming with updates on the lance case why no news on bruyneel etc

what's going on...........anything suspicious or are USADA just mirroring the silence of the defendants?

Mark L

 

[Pazuzu]

after USADA was so forthcoming with updates on the lance case why no news on bruyneel etc

what's going on...........anything suspicious or are USADA just mirroring the silence of the defendants?

It's partly due to the silence of the defendants. But It may also have to do with the fact that the UCI isn't badgering USADA for info like they did in the Armstrong case. Recall McQuaid's incessant clamoring for 'the evidence' the 'rational' prior to the release of the reasoned decision. Also, there isn't the media interest in Bruyneel et al. that there was with Armstrong's case.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

You can't really compare it to Armstrong, as there were no hearings in his case. And I think it would be unusual for the USADA to make any sort of public comment during a hearing.

Also, the holidays probably play a role at the moment -- likely nothing is happening.

 

[ebandit]

?

You can't really compare it to Armstrong, as there were no hearings in his case. And I think it would be unusual for the USADA to make any sort of public comment during a hearing.

Also, the holidays probably play a role at the moment -- likely nothing is happening.

why not? it has not been suggested that the cases are alike but the polar
opposite

previous posts are expressions of opinion not solely statement of fact

Mark L