# Johan Bruyneel banned for 10 years



## love4himies

Johan Bruyneel banned for 10 years, former USPS manager 'at apex' of team's doping 'conspiracy' | road.cc


So Johan gets 10 years and Armstrong gets life?????? Weren't they pretty much in cahoots with each other and just a guilty? In fact, Johan being the team director should be more responsible, IMO.



> An arbitration panel has banned Johan Bruyneel for 10 years after it ruled that the Belgian was "at the apex of a conspiracy to commit widespread doping" while managing the US Postal Service


----------



## love4himies

Here is the link to USADA:

AAA Panel Imposes Ban for Team Director Bruyneel, Team Doctor Celaya and Team Trainer Martí, for Involvement in The United States Postal Service (USPS) Pro Cycling Team Doping Conspiracy | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA)


----------



## jlandry

Yup! This pr!ck should also get a lifetime ban.


----------



## Alaska Mike

I find it odd that a DS, who has the possibility of a relatively long career, would get banned for 10 years, while an athlete, who has a much shorter shelf life, get a lifetime ban. Not saying anyone will likely want to touch Bruyneel in 10 years, but it is an interesting point- especially in light of claims by several riders that Johan was instrumental into convincing them to dope.

Armstrong got life for being a jerk. This and his latest "cooperation" with the UCI may be setting him up for a reduced ban, although I'd rather not see it reduced too much. I see a lot of his contemporaries bemoaning their part in the "dark era" and trumpeting their role in cleaning up cycling, as if Armstrong himself invented and entirely enforced Omerta. Lance played a large role in expanding the practice, but he wasn't the only player in the game. The investigation brought to light a lot of things that I think have been and ultimately will be good for cycling, but considering the other punishments that have been handed out, I'd say Lance's was a little excessive. If only there was a way to do it quietly so that Lance doesn't get any more press.

Not sure what message they're trying to send with Johan's ban.


----------



## spade2you

Alaska Mike said:


> Not sure what message they're trying to send with Johan's ban.


That Riis and all the other DSs are in the clear?


----------



## Fireform

I think we're looking at different bans from different governing bodies, folks.


----------



## 202cycle

I don't think he has much of a chance of getting work in the cycling world after a ten year ban, so I don't think it really matters. The ban could be 6 months, and he's still never work in cycling again.


----------



## badge118

love4himies said:


> Johan Bruyneel banned for 10 years, former USPS manager 'at apex' of team's doping 'conspiracy' | road.cc
> 
> 
> So Johan gets 10 years and Armstrong gets life?????? Weren't they pretty much in cahoots with each other and just a guilty? In fact, Johan being the team director should be more responsible, IMO.


My only question is this... That I see part of Johann's point. It just seems it would have been more "proper" for the USADA to take the case file and forward it to Belgium for action. I know the rules may allow it but it just seems off that simply because they found the evidence of wrong doing they can assert jurisdiction. Johann needed a firm kick in the nuts but I would have felt better with it if it was his federation that administered the kick.

As for the stronger penalty I think that is where the clear animus of Tygart gets shown. Yes Armstrong needed to get nailed...his attitude made him a bigger target BUT I think somewhere along the way it went from "I want to get the bad guys" to "I want to get that arrogant bastich Armstrong. Smug sob covering himself in the mantle of a cancer survivor is pissing me off." So when it came to the punishment we have this added "incentive" to really hammer him.


----------



## den bakker

badge118 said:


> My only question is this... That I see part of Johann's point. It just seems it would have been more "proper" for the USADA to take the case file and forward it to Belgium for action. I know the rules may allow it but it just seems off that simply because they found the evidence of wrong doing they can assert jurisdiction. Johann needed a firm kick in the nuts but I would have felt better with it if it was his federation that administered the kick.
> 
> As for the stronger penalty I think that is where the clear animus of Tygart gets shown. Yes Armstrong needed to get nailed...his attitude made him a bigger target BUT I think somewhere along the way it went from "I want to get the bad guys" to "I want to get that arrogant bastich Armstrong. Smug sob covering himself in the mantle of a cancer survivor is pissing me off." So when it came to the punishment we have this added "incentive" to really hammer him.


standard practice to run a case in a different country.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Regarding the difference in sanction. Unlike Lance Bruyneel never lied under oath so USADA chose to not toll the SOL. USADA only went for actions after June 2004

Regarding Jurisdiction. Johan has no case on this and the Arbitrators made it clear



> 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.


 Swiss gave Germany’s Jan Ullrich a ban, Italy’s CONI caught Spaniard Alejandro Valverde, French anti-doping agency (AFLD) banned German resident Stefan Schumacher


----------



## stretch512

Wow you guys are such saints! Bruyneel's hay days are over. The guy is gonna be back 10 years from now but never at the same level again. Plus everyone knows Lance was on top of his doping game. If anything Bruyneel just helped him manage it.


----------



## Big-foot

NEW RELEASE!
In an effort to ease the burden of their mountain legal expenses Johan Bruyneel and Lance Armstrong their collaborative book "We Might As Well Win" has been re-edited into a more truthful edition.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Regarding the difference in sanction. Unlike Lance Bruyneel never lied under oath so USADA chose to not toll the SOL. USADA only went for actions after June 2004
> 
> Regarding Jurisdiction. Johan has no case on this and the Arbitrators made it clear
> 
> 
> 
> Swiss gave Germany’s Jan Ullrich a ban, Italy’s CONI caught Spaniard Alejandro Valverde, French anti-doping agency (AFLD) banned German resident Stefan Schumacher


Jan had a Swiss license. Schumacher's violation happened in a race tests and controlled by the French ADA. Thus they had jurisdiction...so your point?


----------



## Retro Grouch

10 years should put Johan right at the forefront of the next generation of professional doping techniques. 

Also, Lance's oldest son, Luke David, will be in his mid-twenties. Protégé?


----------



## Bluenote

So Brunyeel never lied under oath, so they just charged him with stuff from 2004 on. Hence he gets a lesser ban than Armstrong.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - WADA needs to clear up how / why it imposes bans. If someone gets caught after the fact for years of doping is it one offense, one offense for each year of doping, multiple offenses? The disparity in sentences doesn't look good. Make it simple and clear.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Jan had a Swiss license. Schumacher's violation happened in a race tests and controlled by the French ADA. Thus they had jurisdiction...so your point?


My point is clear, multiple riders have been sanctioned by ADA's that are not from their home country. The Arbitrators made it very clear that Johan had no case when it comes to jurisdiction.....which is what Johan based his entire case on. 

Johan is a fool. Never should have taken this to arbitration.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> My point is clear, multiple riders have been sanctioned by ADA's that are not from their home country. The Arbitrators made it very clear that Johan had no case when it comes to jurisdiction.....which is what Johan based his entire case on.
> 
> Johan is a fool. Never should have taken this to arbitration.


No it is not clear because under the UCI and IOC rules it is NOT where you live that governs you in sport but where you are licensed. Then they give authority to the Nation hosting the event. So a Belgian can have a Belgian license BUT live in Monaco for tax reasons. So again I ask...what's you point from a jurisdiction point since none of your examples are applicable.

If you can provide an example, other than this one, where neither the licensing federation, governing body or event host nation asserted jurisdiction get back to me. If not from a logical stance you have failed to make your point.

I agree they are all **** heads. I just think the authorities holding to strict interpretations of the rules provides less wiggle room for the bad guys. The minute you play fast and lose you risk losing what you gained.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> No it is not clear because under the UCI and IOC rules it is NOT where you live that governs you in sport but where you are licensed. Then they give authority to the Nation hosting the event. So a Belgian can have a Belgian license BUT live in Monaco for tax reasons. So again I ask...what's you point from a jurisdiction point since none of your examples are applicable.
> 
> If you can provide an example, other than this one, where neither the licensing federation, governing body or event host nation asserted jurisdiction get back to me. If not from a logical stance you have failed to make your point.
> .


Do you even read my posts? Valverde was sanctioned by CONI for his involvement with Fuentes. 

The rules are VERY clear 



> 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.


This has been covered over, and over, and over.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Do you even read my posts? Valverde was sanctioned by CONI for his involvement with Fuentes.
> 
> The rules are VERY clear
> 
> 
> 
> This has been covered over, and over, and over.


And when they did so it only applied to races in Italy. The UCI, aka the governing body, then pursued to having it made global.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...Valverde-banned-from-Italy-for-two-years.html

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/2010-05-31-valverde-doping-ban_N.htm

Try again.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> And when they did so it only applied to races in Italy. The UCI, aka the governing body, then pursued to having it made global.
> 
> Alejandro Valverde banned from Italy for two years - Telegraph
> 
> Cyclist Alejandro Valverde banned two years for doping - USATODAY.com
> 
> Try again.


Wrong again. 

CONI found Valverde guilty and banned him for 2 years. As is the process this ban, and the evidence to support it, is handed to the UCI to confirm. Valverde appealed to CAS shortly after CONI handed down their judgement, this paused the process. CAS ruled clearly that 



> The CAS Panel considered that the CONI had jurisdiction to render the decision


So to be clear

Valverde is Spanish, Licensed in Spain, and doped in Spain. CONI is Italian and they discovered his doping. They sanctioned him. 

Simple, not sure why you don't understand. CAS has ruled multiple times with multiple athletes that a foreign ADA can sanction a rider. It is clearly spelled out in the UCI rules, which I have given you multiple times. There is also the portion of the WADA code that confirms the ban by one ADA is honored by all ADA's and Feds

Rule 10.10 the WADA code



> No athlete or other person who has been declared ineligible may, during the period of ineligibility, participate in any capacity in a competition or activity (other than authorized anti-doping education or rehabilitation programs) authorized or organized by any signatory, signatory's member organization, or a club or other member organization of a signatory’s member organization, or in competitions authorized or organized by any professional league or any international- or national-level event organization.


Johan was stupid to pursue this. On a positive note this has added yet more legal precedence which should limit dopers from trying it again


----------



## asgelle

Bluenote said:


> So Brunyeel never lied under oath, so they just charged him with stuff from 2004 on. Hence he gets a lesser ban than Armstrong.


Come on. This all didn't happen that long ago. USADA charged Armstrong and Bruyneel and imposed a lifetime ban on both. Armstrong accepted that judgement and ban without challenge. Bruyneel did not accept USADA's lifetime ban and went to arbitration. At arbitration AAA imposed a 10 year ban. 

So Armstrong and Bruyneel were handed the same penalty by USADA. There's no way to know what ban AAA would have given Armstrong as he never went to arbitration.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Wrong again.
> 
> CONI found Valverde guilty and banned him for 2 years. As is the process this ban, and the evidence to support it, is handed to the UCI to confirm. Valverde appealed to CAS shortly after CONI handed down their judgement, this paused the process. CAS ruled clearly that
> 
> 
> 
> So to be clear
> 
> Valverde is Spanish, Licensed in Spain, and doped in Spain. CONI is Italian and they discovered his doping. They sanctioned him.
> 
> Simple, not sure why you don't understand. CAS has ruled multiple times with multiple athletes that a foreign ADA can sanction a rider. It is clearly spelled out in the UCI rules, which I have given you multiple times. There is also the portion of the WADA code that confirms the ban by one ADA is honored by all ADA's and Feds
> 
> Rule 10.10 the WADA code
> 
> 
> 
> Johan was stupid to pursue this. On a positive note this has added yet more legal precedence which should limit dopers from trying it again


So the news stories and interviews where CONI banned him in Italy... And then the UCI looked at the evidence and made it global...they don't exist or are fos? 

Yes foreign ADAs can sanction riders... I already acknowledged that. The point you are raising here is a point of PROCESS. In the Valverde case he was first banned exclusively in Italy. Then they sent the case to the UCI. The UCI pushed for the global ban Valverde appealed.

Yes Valverde lost BUT if it was as clean cut as you make it...basically "banned in one banned in all" why did CAS allow his win in the Vuelta to stand? 

Regardless... In that case again a sample taken in a competition in ITALY was used by ITALIANs. So a host Federation exerted jurisdiction. Perfectly valid. In Armstrong's case the licensing Federation took jurisdiction... Again an equally valid case.

With Johann there is a difference. No violation in the case was alleged to have happened on US soil. One could of course make an argument that assisting in the doping athletes under their jurisdiction gives them just that but they did not make that argument.

You have yet to show a case that meets the parameters I have asked...you keep stating they exist but have yet to show one. So when you can I'll be back. Until then happy babbling.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> You have yet to show a case that meets the parameters I have asked...you keep stating they exist but have yet to show one. So when you can I'll be back. Until then happy babbling.


Yes, I have. And I have shown you the sections of the WADA code and UCI ADR that support them. I have provide you multiple CAS cases that support what I have said. You have ignored this and babbled about how Valverde's well timed appeal negates this.....it does not. The process goes like this

Local ADA bans doper
UCI has 90 days to confirm, or appeal, the ban

You are welcome to pretend that USADA does not have jurisdiction over Johan, but USADA, WADA, CAS, and the UCI say you are wrong.


----------



## Local Hero

and cycling is finally clean


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, I have. And I have shown you the sections of the WADA code and UCI ADR that support them. I have provide you multiple CAS cases that support what I have said. You have ignored this and babbled about how Valverde's well timed appeal negates this.....it does not. The process goes like this
> 
> Local ADA bans doper
> UCI has 90 days to confirm, or appeal, the ban
> 
> You are welcome to pretend that USADA does not have jurisdiction over Johan, but USADA, WADA, CAS, and the UCI say you are wrong.


Blah blah blah blah is what I heard because the only section. you noted that I saw was 10.10 which refers to the effect of a ban NOT jurisdiction of the initial investigation. You have yet to show a successful investigation which originated from a triggering event that did not start in either 
A) the licensing Federation.
B) the Federation hosting an event where a sample was taken and/or offense occurred.
C) with the governing body.

Please be specific. If you are right finding 1 that does not fall under A, B or C should be no problem. If you note one I will be happy to say Mae culpa. If you can not...well then...


----------



## The Tedinator

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/sports/cycling/a-double-standard-in-doping-punishments.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0


----------



## love4himies

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Johan is a fool. Never should have taken this to arbitration.


According to the link provided by Tedinator, he wasn't:



> The arbitration panel could have supported Usada’s proposal for lifetime bans for all three defendants but chose not to. In Armstrong’s case, antidoping experts say, he received the maximum because he did not go to arbitration. There, Usada’s suggested lifetime ban could possibly have been reduced.


Like Bluenote stated. Keep the rules clear and consistent as it's all about public perception. The average person is not going to know all the legalities of the different regulating bodies. They see one sport which should have one set of rules. This ruling is playing right into Lance's proclamation that this was a witch hunt by Travis and that he was treated unfairly.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> According to the link provided by Tedinator, he wasn't:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Bluenote stated. Keep the rules clear and consistent as it's all about public perception. The average person is not going to know all the legalities of the different regulating bodies. They see one sport which should have one set of rules. This ruling is playing right into Lance's proclamation that this was a witch hunt by Travis and that he was treated unfairly.


Nope. 

With Johan USADA was not able to toll the SOL as Johan technically had never lied under oath or to an official inquiry, Lance had. 

If USADA wanted to push this they could take it to CAS and likely win. The arbitrators ignored all of the signed affidavits from witnesses that did not show up in London to testify. Some of those, like Emma O'Reilly, could show that Johan did indeed lie when Lance tested positive for Cortisone in 99


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> You have yet to show a successful investigation which originated from a triggering event that did not start in either
> A) the licensing Federation.
> B) the Federation hosting an event where a sample was taken and/or offense occurred.
> C) with the governing body.
> .


Reading is not your thing is it? 

Valverde


You are wrong, yet you keep digging this hole. It is not just me saying you are wrong but the UCI, CAS, and WADA say you are wrong.

If you really believe that USADA, CAS, and all 3 arbitrators got it wrong and Johan has a jurisdictional case then you really should email him and offer your services for his appeal to CAS. [email protected] 

He is eagerly awaiting your assistance as so far his lawyers have failed badly


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If USADA wanted to push this they could take it to CAS and likely win.


Do you think that USADA skipped this step with Bruyneel because Travis Tygart has less of a personal vendetta against Bruyneel? 

(Compare it to Tygart's hatred and vendetta with regard to Armstrong.)


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Reading is not your thing is it?
> 
> Valverde
> 
> 
> You are wrong, yet you keep digging this hole. It is not just me saying you are wrong but the UCI, CAS, and WADA say you are wrong.
> 
> If you really believe that USADA, CAS, and all 3 arbitrators got it wrong and Johan has a jurisdictional case then you really should email him and offer your services for his appeal to CAS. [email protected]
> 
> He is eagerly awaiting your assistance as so far his lawyers have failed badly


And I said that Valverde was different because while in a race a blood sample was taken. This was compared to DNA and they banned him. This was not a matter of an ADA just saying after a non-scientific finding we are choosing to ban him for something where we have no jurisdictional nexus.

I think the issues on that, as I said, are pretty clear. CAS did not remove Valverde's Vuelta win which occurred when a ban ONLY in Italy was in place. So clearly CAS was raising a jurisdictional issue as it relates to 10.10. If this was not the case Valverde would have also lost his Vuelta win. If CAS believed as you did he would not have that Vuelta win on his palmares.

As for the idea of Johann fighting... even if he did win how much money would it cost him. He was already not active in the sport for so long so why waste half his fortune? 

I am NOT saying Johann is a good guy. He needed to go down to. Call me silly but I think when you enforce rules it is incumbent on you to hold yourself to a higher standard....to play but the clear letter of the law. It is the dirt bags job to stretch the envelope, to bend the rules to try and get away with it. If you wanted to do that you forward the info to the appropriate licensing federation, the governing body etc.


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> Do you think that USADA skipped this step ...


Do you have some sort of crystal ball that lets you see into the future? The decision was just handed down yesterday and USADA still has weeks to decide whether to appeal or not.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Do you think that USADA skipped this step with Bruyneel because Travis Tygart has less of a personal vendetta against Bruyneel?
> 
> (Compare it to Tygart's hatred and vendetta with regard to Armstrong.)


Ahh! More pro-Armstrong trolling. 

I think the USADA went easy on JB because he had very, very good taste in art. Tygart has sensitive aesthetics. 

Maybe the USADA thinks 10 years is effectively a lifetime ban for JB - no team will go near him now? Maybe they don't think it's worth the $ / effort / risk of CAS reducing the ban - to go to CAS and fight for a symbolic victory?


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> and cycling is finally clean


JB is tied to a number of GT winners / contenders busted for doping. It's not "clean" yet, but it'd "cleaner." 

Do you think JB should be allowed to remain in cycling?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> And I said that Valverde was different because while in a race a blood sample was taken. This was compared to DNA and they banned him. This was not a matter of an ADA just saying after a non-scientific finding we are choosing to ban him for something where we have no jurisdictional nexus.
> 
> I think the issues on that, as I said, are pretty clear. CAS did not remove Valverde's Vuelta win which occurred when a ban ONLY in Italy was in place. So clearly CAS was raising a jurisdictional issue as it relates to 10.10. If this was not the case Valverde would have also lost his Vuelta win. If CAS believed as you did he would not have that Vuelta win on his palmares.
> 
> As for the idea of Johann fighting... even if he did win how much money would it cost him. He was already not active in the sport for so long so why waste half his fortune?
> 
> I am NOT saying Johann is a good guy. He needed to go down to. Call me silly but I think when you enforce rules it is incumbent on you to hold yourself to a higher standard....to play but the clear letter of the law. It is the dirt bags job to stretch the envelope, to bend the rules to try and get away with it. If you wanted to do that you forward the info to the appropriate licensing federation, the governing body etc.


So Valverde tested positive for DNA? :thumbsup:

At this point I can't figure out if you really don't understand or are just trolling. If you truly believe you are right and the UCI, WADA, USADA, and CAS are wrong then I urge you to set up a consulting service and offer your insight to dopers world wide. Johan is waiting for your call


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> Maybe the USADA thinks 10 years is effectively a lifetime ban for JB - no team will go near him now? Maybe they don't think it's worth the $ / effort / risk of CAS reducing the ban - to go to CAS and fight for a symbolic victory?


Are you suggesting that it was a symbolic victory to get a lifetime ban for Armstrong? What team would take him after he turns 50?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> D hatred and vendetta with regard to Armstrong


Link?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> So Valverde tested positive for DNA?


All known life forms have DNA.


...I suppose you're want a link for that too?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> All known life forms have DNA.
> 
> 
> ...I suppose you're want a link for that too?


If you read the posts you will see that I was pointing out the absurdity of pretending DNA was an analytical positive. 

CONI suspended Valverdi. USADA suspended Bruyneel. No surprise as WADA, USADA, UCI and CAS all say this is OK.....but Johan does not agree. Says he was a target of a witch hunt.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If you read the posts you will see that I was pointing out the absurdity of pretending DNA was an analytical positive.
> 
> CONI suspended Valverdi. USADA suspended Bruyneel. No surprise as WADA, USADA, UCI and CAS all say this is OK.....but Johan does not agree. Says he was a target of a witch hunt.


Speaking of witch hunts, the largest witch hunt in history was The Basque Witch Trials undertaken by the Spanish Inquisition. Contrast that with Operacion Puerto. 

Oh how things have changed in Spain.


----------



## love4himies

Local Hero said:


> Speaking of witch hunts, the largest witch hunt in history was The Basque Witch Trials undertaken by the Spanish Inquisition. Contrast that with Operacion Puerto.
> 
> Oh how things have changed in Spain.


Link?


----------



## love4himies

Bluenote said:


> Ahh! More pro-Armstrong trolling.


Ah come on, it's just fun bantering that provides us with comic relief in this so serious subject of doping.


----------



## badge118

I think you miss a couple key things. I will concur that people who do not understand legal decisions believe that the Valverde case opened the door to all sorts of cases where an ADA in Country A can pursue an athlete from another country regardless of a traditional jurisdictional nexus...however the Valverde case is FAR more complicated. Prior to this case such had never happened and until Johann it has yet to happen again.

1. The DNA sample was taken in Italy
2. It was compared to OP samples NOT in the possession of Spanish BUT rather Italian authorities.
3. WADA AND, most importantly, the UCI moved to have it made World Wide.

Here is the thing that you keep ignoring. The UCI filing the appeal to have an Italian only ban made world wide. If the UCI had not filed said appeal said ban would have remained only in Italy. This is why the Vuelta results were allowed to stand. However as the governing body the UCI has Jurisdiction over all cyclists and so had standing to take the CONI evidence and apply it world wide.

This is why I don't get you in this case...all it would take is the USADA to hand over their evidence to the UCI and then have the UCI move to issue the world wide ban. ONE LITTLE STEP that would be completely consistent with the Valverde decision.

Not trolling at all, simply looking at the complete timeline of the Valverde decision and reading the relevant rulings off of CAS's web site instead of from press reports.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> 2. It was compared to OP samples NOT in the possession of Spanish BUT rather Italian authorities.


Not sure why you are writing this.......not even close to accurate. 

As Torri said at the time



> The law must be equal towards everyone. Judge Serrano sent us all the documentation in order to take action against Basso and Scarponi, but then refused to do it in Valverde’s case.


CONI waited until the Serrano went on vacation and used normal legal channels to request a DNA profile from bag #18. CONI can do this as, unlike USADA, they are part of the Italian government and have access all of the investigative force of the Italian judicial system. 

Valverde was smart to rapidly appeal the ban, prior to UCI being able to confirm it. 

The rules are clear 



> 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.*


You are welcome to spin around in circles on this topic if you like but the rules are clear, *USADA has jurisdiction*. It has been confirmed over and over and over


----------



## atpjunkie

spade2you said:


> That Riis and all the other DSs are in the clear?


spade we think the same

yeah no other DS's were doing that at all.....

no other teams had programs....

stupid


----------



## atpjunkie

amazing that so many doping riders and doping DS's are still racing
I have no issues with bans and sanctions but there is no balance in justice
Valverde - Operation Puerto 2006. Lied about it when his plasma @ Puerto matched his Olympic samples now has won Fleche Wallone


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> That Riis and all the other DSs are in the clear?


Riis is currently being investigated by ADD. They have interviewed multiple riders and staff. Their investigation, and impending charges, were a large reason behind Riis selling the team

Coni is currently investigating Giuseppe Saronni and directeur sportif Maurizio Piovani and Fabrizio Bontemp from Lampre. All were sent to trial for doping charges. 

Di Luca, and his doping doctor Santuccione are banned for life

T-Mobile doping Doctors Lothar Heinrich and Andreas Schmid were pursued by German courts for 6 years. Lost their medical licenses and resulted in a change in German law that will make it easier to prosecute doping doctors in the future

Willy Voet, Bruno Roussel, Jef d'Hont, Jean Dalibot, Joel Chabiron, Éric Paranier and Christine Paranier were all convicted and spent time in prison. They are all out of the sport

Many others got out once WADA got into the game. Pevenage, Godefrote, Ferretti, Siaz all gone. Roussel went to jail, now sells real estate. Holzer's case against Schumacher was tossed out and he was fired from Katusha. Mauro Gianetti should be banned for life.....but he is just been pushed out of the sport. Not enough evidence. 


But Johan is victim. Singled out. Blah, blah


----------



## Bluenote

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Riis is currently being investigated by ADD. They have interviewed multiple riders and staff. Their investigation, and impending charges, were a large reason behind Riis selling the team
> 
> Coni is currently investigating Giuseppe Saronni and directeur sportif Maurizio Piovani and Fabrizio Bontemp from Lampre. All were sent to trial for doping charges.
> 
> Di Luca, and his doping doctor Santuccione are banned for life
> 
> T-Mobile doping Doctors Lothar Heinrich and Andreas Schmid were pursued by German courts for 6 years. Lost their medical licenses and resulted in a change in German law that will make it easier to prosecute doping doctors in the future
> 
> Willy Voet, Bruno Roussel, Jef d'Hont, Jean Dalibot, Joel Chabiron, Éric Paranier and Christine Paranier were all convicted and spent time in prison. They are all out of the sport
> 
> Many others got out once WADA got into the game. Pevenage, Godefrote, Ferretti, Siaz all gone. Roussel went to jail, now sells real estate. Holzer's case against Schumacher was tossed out and he was fired from Katusha. Mauro Gianetti should be banned for life.....but he is just been pushed out of the sport. Not enough evidence.
> 
> 
> But Johan is victim. Singled out. Blah, blah


Armstrong is the victim. Because he has bad taste in art.


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> Are you suggesting that it was a symbolic victory to get a lifetime ban for Armstrong? What team would take him after he turns 50?


Your game is really slipping...

USADA asked for a lifetime ban for Armstrong. He walked away from the process - no arbitration. He got the full sentence. 

USADA asked for a lifetime ban for Brunyeel. He fought and got it down to 10 years. 

You're a Lawyer. You very well know the difference between a defendant who fights charges and a defendant who throws in the towel. You're fooling no one. 

Man, have some pride in your trolling. You've really been mailing it in lately.


----------



## badge118

Bluenote said:


> Your game is really slipping...
> 
> USADA asked for a lifetime ban for Armstrong. He walked away from the process - no arbitration. He got the full sentence.
> 
> USADA asked for a lifetime ban for Brunyeel. He fought and got it down to 10 years.
> 
> You're a Lawyer. You very well know the difference between a defendant who fights charges and a defendant who throws in the towel. You're fooling no one.
> 
> Man, have some pride in your trolling. You've really been mailing it in lately.


Here's a question...why are we arguing about this case anyway. Rogers just got a pass for the same thing Contador lost a TdF over. The rationalization with Contador was that he is responsible for what goes into his body. The UCI had cautioned all athletes in China NOT to eat beef. Rogers did anyway.


----------



## asgelle

badge118 said:


> Here's a question...why are we arguing about this case anyway. Rogers just got a pass for the same thing Contador lost a TdF over.


First, that is simply not true. Rogers was sanctioned for his positive.



badge118 said:


> The rationalization with Contador was that he is responsible for what goes into his body. The UCI had cautioned all athletes in China NOT to eat beef. Rogers did anyway.


Second, that is the same standard Rogers was held to, hence the sanction. Read the WADA code regarding strict liability and the burden of proof with regard to accidental ingestion to understand the difference between the sanctions handed down in the two cases.


----------



## stretch512

Clen is totally abused in cycling and Rogers gets a pass and Contador doesn't just pisses me off. Clen, is a terrible drug anyway and to say that he got it from the beef - that just pure BS they were taking Clen even if it was small doses sublingual. It has a long half life and sticks around. As for Johan, let that sleeping dog alone. Look at history at and the time in which he raced and was a manager was at the height of PED use. What team was not using PED's? Armstrong and Johan just did a better job of utilizing them. To put all this attention on Armstrong and Johan is weird cause look at all the other teams and riders from top to bottom who were using PED's. Really there were a few exceptions but history will not lie. Acting like Johan is the big bad wolf is just one sided. They did what everyone else during that time did, use PED's, train and try to win.


----------



## rufus

atpjunkie said:


> amazing that so many doping riders and doping DS's are still racing
> I have no issues with bans and sanctions but there is no balance in justice
> Valverde - Operation Puerto 2006. Lied about it when his plasma @ Puerto matched his Olympic samples now has won Fleche Wallone


Well if you don't like that result, then prove he was doping when he won it. 

It is possible for cyclists who were once doping to race clean and still win. Especially if doping is not as prevalent in the peloton as it once was. 

Which, is not what I'm claiming. I'm of the opinion that they're all pretty much still doped to the gills. But you need proof and evidence before you go around banning and stripping of race results. As any mutual fund will tell you, past results do not guarantee future performance.


----------



## badge118

asgelle said:


> First, that is simply not true. Rogers was sanctioned for his positive.
> 
> 
> Second, that is the same standard Rogers was held to, hence the sanction. Read the WADA code regarding strict liability and the burden of proof with regard to accidental ingestion to understand the difference between the sanctions handed down in the two cases.


What is his penalty vs Contadors?


----------



## asgelle

badge118 said:


> What is his penalty vs Contadors?


How does Contador have any bearing on whether or not Rogers was sanctioned?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

This is the Bruyneel thread, Doger has his own thread

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/do...ms-another-victim-michael-rodgers-315583.html


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> This is the Bruyneel thread, Doger has his own thread
> 
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/do...ms-another-victim-michael-rodgers-315583.html


Thanks. Missed it using my phone.


----------



## love4himies

badge118 said:


> What is his penalty vs Contadors?


Wonder why they didn't believe Contador. Why would a cyclist risk eating the beef in China, unless they were using it beforehand knowing they could use the beef excuse should they get caught.

Banned Australian cyclist Michael Rogers cleared to ride again



> After his positive test, Rogers, 34, an Olympian and nine-time Tour de France starter with a personal best overall finish of ninth in 2006, was provisionally suspended, but maintained his innocence.
> On Wednesday, the UCI said in a statement that it had accepted the Tinkoff-Saxo rider’s explanation that his positive was due to contaminated meat he had eaten when he was in China where he raced in the Tour of Beijing.
> “Upon careful analysis of Mr Rogers’ explanations and the accompanying technical reports, the UCI found that that there was a significant probability that the presence of clenbuterol may have resulted from the consumption of contaminated meat from China – where he had taken part in a race before travelling to Japan.
> “As a result, the UCI has proceeded with the automatic disqualification of Mr Rogers’ results at the 2013 Japan Cup Cycle Road Race [the competition during which the positive sample was taken] but, after consulting WADA, decided that he should not be sanctioned any further.


----------



## den bakker

love4himies said:


> Wonder why they didn't believe Contador.


how often is clenbuterol found in spanish meat?


----------



## badge118

den bakker said:


> how often is clenbuterol found in spanish meat?


They have a history of it for sure. I forget the year but one year they had over 100 cases of patients reporting irregular heart beats. They finally traced the source to clenbuterol tainted beef. Now as it is not uncommon for people with minor and intermittent arythmias to not report to a doctor...100 cases, tied to such a cause... that is a lot.

This of course is not proof that Contador did NOT use clenbuterol, but raising the excuse is not without foundation either... /shrug


----------



## spade2you

den bakker said:


> how often is clenbuterol found in spanish meat?


The tainted meat defense worked for Rogers. Should work for Clenbutador. Besides, it was under the specified limit, which was retrospectively changed.


----------



## den bakker

ok you don't know. thanks for sharing.


----------



## atpjunkie

rufus said:


> Well if you don't like that result, then prove he was doping when he won it.
> 
> It is possible for cyclists who were once doping to race clean and still win. Especially if doping is not as prevalent in the peloton as it once was.
> 
> Which, is not what I'm claiming. I'm of the opinion that they're all pretty much still doped to the gills. But you need proof and evidence before you go around banning and stripping of race results. As any mutual fund will tell you, past results do not guarantee future performance.


not what I'm saying. But if being part of a professional doping program gets you a lifetime ban, it doesn't seem to be metered out evenly

I don't care either way. I am, like you, convinced they are all doped to the gills. I just find the punishments are not distributed evenly


----------



## badge118

atpjunkie said:


> not what I'm saying. But if being part of a professional doping program gets you a lifetime ban, it doesn't seem to be metered out evenly
> 
> I don't care either way. I am, like you, convinced they are all doped to the gills. I just find the punishments are not distributed evenly


^^^^^^

This. I mentioned this before and was basically basically told to shut up, largely because some allow their personal animosity to corrupt any appearance of credibility or an actual attempt at true justice. 

For any system to have credibility and for their to be confidence in it's justice, the system must be seen as impartial. Yes some may get a visceral thrill when they see someone they dislike get nailed HARD but when the next guy, who did something largely similar, gets a lesser punishment questions are asked and doubt in the system festers.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> This. I mentioned this before and was basically basically told to shut up, largely because some allow their personal animosity to corrupt any appearance of credibility or an actual attempt at true justice.


Nah, you tried to twist some nonsense to support your theories that made no sense. 

Lance never took his case to arbitration, who knows what would have happened if he did. Johan took that step and found out. 

Still, I do agree I think they may have got it wrong. Likely because many of the witnesses, on both sides, were ignored due to a technicality. There was also the SOL issue that you did not have in the Armstrong case. Many would also say the Arbitrators gave him 10 years because they knew that no way it would be over turned. With a lifetime ban johan might be stupid enough to keep appealing to CAS. What ever they might say publicly judges and arbitrators don't like their decisions being overruled. They went for the sure bet


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

atpjunkie said:


> I just find the punishments are not distributed evenly


Unfortunately the evidence is not even as well. 

A good example is Jan Ullrich. There is little doubt he doped throughout his career....what what evidence is there? Very little. Jan and Rudy pulled him out of the Telekom doping program in 98. It pissed off the team but the result was almost no mention of Jan in the Freiburg report and zero evidence from teammates. The best the UCI could get was one blood bag in Fuentes fridge and some SMS' messages. 

I can understand that some feel we should go after everyone, even if they don't have any evidence.......but then this really would be a witch hunt


----------



## Fireform

Cheating dirtbags having to deal with injustice? Cry me a river.


----------



## badge118

Fireform said:


> Cheating dirtbags having to deal with injustice? Cry me a river.


Its NOT just about them. It is also about us. How can a reasonable person who engages in critical thinking have faith in a system where different people get different punishments for the same offense with little to no explanation beyond "because", in the final analysis?

A person driven by emotion will cheer when someone gets slammed and whine when someone gets a slap on the wrist. A critical thinker will say "what is wrong with the system? Why did this guy get slammed and that guy get a finger wagged at him? Is the system broken? If so can we fix it? Do we need to totally redo it? Is it workable in any form?"

In essence it brings the system into question and if the questions can not be answered then faith in the system errodes.

It is about them in that it creates a disincentive to comply. If Mike see Bob get slammed but Steve get a slap on the wrist, Mike can sit there and say "hey Steve got a slap on the wrist, let's give it a shot.". For any system of rules/punishment to be truly effect the first step must be consistency in application. We have known this throughout the history of jurisprudence.


----------



## love4himies

badge118 said:


> Its NOT about them. It is about us. How can a reasonable person who engages in critical thinking have faith in a system where different people get different punishments for the same offense with little to no explanation beyond "because", in the final analysis.
> 
> A person driven by emotion will cheer when someone gets slammed and whine when someone gets a slap on the wrist. A critical thinker will say "what is wrong with the system? Why did this guy get slammed and that guy get a finger wagged at him? Is the system broken? If so can we fix it? Do we need to totally redo it? Is it workable in any form?"
> 
> In essence it brings the system into question and if the questions can not be answered then faith in the system errodes.


That is exactly how the joe public will view it. Just really plays into the "Woe Is Me Lances of cycling who have gotten harsher sentences than others.


----------



## love4himies

> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to badge118 again.


Good post.


----------



## badge118

love4himies said:


> That is exactly how the joe public will view it. Just really plays into the "Woe Is Me Lances of cycling who have gotten harsher sentences than others.


Exactly...I forgot that bit. It also feeds the cries of the dopers apologist. Some people will latch onto the inconsistency, paint it rightly or wrongly as having the appearance of personal animus and create conspiracy theories. 

If LA had not admitted on Live TV that he doped I suspect some would still say he did not dope and people were blackmailed into testifying against him. With his interview though they still paint him as a martyr though, a victim not of false but instead over zealous prosecution.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> That is exactly how the joe public will view it. Just really plays into the "Woe Is Me Lances of cycling who have gotten harsher sentences than others.


Most see him as another loser crying victim. They cannot even spell Bruyneel and don't know who Marti is


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Most see him as another loser crying victim. They cannot even spell Bruyneel and don't know who Marti is


So because cycling is a fringe sport in America and LA is the only guy 6 pack Joe knows, its all okay... Gotcha


----------



## Fireform

badge118 said:


> Its NOT just about them. It is also about us. How can a reasonable person who engages in critical thinking have faith in a system where different people get different punishments for the same offense with little to no explanation beyond "because", in the final analysis?
> 
> A person driven by emotion will cheer when someone gets slammed and whine when someone gets a slap on the wrist. A critical thinker will say "what is wrong with the system? Why did this guy get slammed and that guy get a finger wagged at him? Is the system broken? If so can we fix it? Do we need to totally redo it? Is it workable in any form?"
> 
> In essence it brings the system into question and if the questions can not be answered then faith in the system errodes.
> 
> It is about them in that it creates a disincentive to comply. If Mike see Bob get slammed but Steve get a slap on the wrist, Mike can sit there and say "hey Steve got a slap on the wrist, let's give it a shot.". For any system of rules/punishment to be truly effect the first step must be consistency in application. We have known this throughout the history of jurisprudence.


If these guys were all being punished for the same offenses by the same authorities your argument would have merit. As it is, though, it just comes across as naive. There are places in the US where you can do hard time if you're caught with a joint in your pocket and others where grass is as good as legal. Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that circumstances differ from case to case is just argument for arguments sake. 

Lance is in as much trouble as he is as a result of his own carefully considered, vigorously prosecuted actions. I have no sympathy for him. Not a drop


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> So because cycling is a fringe sport in America and LA is the only guy 6 pack Joe knows, its all okay... Gotcha


Were you this upset when Cees Priem and Andrei Michailov from TVM were tossed in a French prison, or is it just Lance who gets you angry? 

Lance, Johan, and their buddies got what they deserved. Nobody will be crying for them.


----------



## aclinjury

badge118 said:


> Its NOT just about them. It is also about us. How can a reasonable person who engages in critical thinking have faith in a system where different people get different punishments for the same offense with little to no explanation beyond "because", in the final analysis?
> 
> A person driven by emotion will cheer when someone gets slammed and whine when someone gets a slap on the wrist. A critical thinker will say "what is wrong with the system? Why did this guy get slammed and that guy get a finger wagged at him? Is the system broken? If so can we fix it? Do we need to totally redo it? Is it workable in any form?"
> 
> In essence it brings the system into question and if the questions can not be answered then faith in the system errodes.
> 
> It is about them in that it creates a disincentive to comply. If Mike see Bob get slammed but Steve get a slap on the wrist, Mike can sit there and say "hey Steve got a slap on the wrist, let's give it a shot.". For any system of rules/punishment to be truly effect the first step must be consistency in application. We have known this throughout the history of jurisprudence.


You're a lawyer right? Regardless, I'm pretty sure you already know that all justice systems are at best a poor attempt at equality. Is there a justice system that makes everyone happy? That's how the real world works. You live in the US, you should know.

Not sure why you're so enraged that you needed to let us know that you're a truely criticaly and thinking man and you see this inequality in punishment as an insult to your logic. However, I'm pretty sure there are plenty folks with logics who are not as enraged as you are. I follow your logic and line of questioning, and I'm thinking to myself, you're working up your brain too much! 10 years from now Bruyneel will be selling real estates too.


----------



## Local Hero

I read his post twice and don't understand why are claim he is enraged. Is projecting emotion on another's post a way of distracting from the conversation?


----------



## aclinjury

Local Hero said:


> I read his post twice and don't understand why are claim he is enraged. Is projecting emotion on another's post a way of distracting from the conversation?


well not maybe enraged as in having face full of boiling steam. But considering that's he's a lawyer, and so I assume he's well accustomed to the unequal distribution of punishment within our justice system (which we often claim to be of the best in the world)... then Badge is sounding a bit too pretentious when he said that the unequal punishment is somehow a bother on his logic. The thing about his line of questioning is that it can be pretty much applied to every single aspect of life, because there's always something that can be argued as unequaled when logic is applied. Is he going to apply his line of questioning to all dopers? or to just Bruyneel?

Me, a lifetime ban would be nice for Bruyneel. But I'll take 10 years too, and not blink about logic issues.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

aclinjury said:


> well not maybe enraged as in having face full of boiling steam. But considering that's he's a lawyer, and so I assume he's well accustomed to the unequal distribution of punishment within our justice system (which we often claim to be of the best in the world)... then Badge is sounding a bit too pretentious when he said that the unequal punishment is somehow a bother on his logic. The thing about his line of questioning is that it can be pretty much applied to every single aspect of life, because there's always something that can be argued as unequaled when logic is applied. Is he going to apply his line of questioning to all dopers? or to just Bruyneel?
> 
> Me, a lifetime ban would be nice for Bruyneel. But I'll take 10 years too, and not blink about logic issues.


Plus the idea that anyone who does not agree with him is not a reasonable person who engages in critical thinking. 

We have a well developed legal system here in America. Still every insider trader on Wall Street is not caught, The punishments are not all equal, every speeder does not get caught. 

Johan's career is over. He is finished. 10 years, lifetime, not much difference. 

Tyler Hamilton is banned for 8 years even though he should have got a lifetime ban. I don't see anyone screaming about that "Injustice"


----------



## Local Hero

There is some perception that Armstrong was the worst, the originator, the motivator, and the biggest cheat of all. Now he's partially gutted and hung upside on the dock for all to see. It's safe to go back in the water! People are gawking and taking pictures. Maybe a few other small fish have been caught with small punishment. But some are kicking Armstrong's strung up corpse, as if to doll out punishment that should have been meted out on other cheats.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Were you this upset when Cees Priem and Andrei Michailov from TVM were tossed in a French prison, or is it just Lance who gets you angry?


Let's put this in perspective. 

A handful of those characters were caught red handed and jailed for a few days pending a police investigation. They were then released and tried. 

What were the results of the trials? Was there any jail time or just some penalties? 

From what I understand there were just fines, the largest was 50.000F. 

I'm sure that Armstrong would have been happy to only face a few nights in the clink and pay a measly $25,000, like Cees Priem.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Plus the idea that anyone who does not agree with him is not a reasonable person who engages in critical thinking.
> 
> We have a well developed legal system here in America. Still every insider trader on Wall Street is not caught, The punishments are not all equal, every speeder does not get caught.
> 
> Johan's career is over. He is finished. 10 years, lifetime, not much difference.
> 
> Tyler Hamilton is banned for 8 years even though he should have got a lifetime ban. I don't see anyone screaming about that "Injustice"


Wasn't it during his 8 year suspension that he got "honest" about doping in professional cycling?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Let's put this in perspective.
> 
> A handful of those characters were caught red handed and jailed for a few days pending a police investigation. They were then released and tried.
> 
> What were the results of the trials? Was there any jail time or just some penalties?
> 
> From what I understand there were just fines, the largest was 50.000F.
> 
> I'm sure that Armstrong would have been happy to only face a few nights in the clink and pay a measly $25,000, like Cees Priem.


Lance was doing the same, and more, as the folks at Festina. In 99 were you calling for Lance to be treated the same as they were?


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance was doing the same, and more, as the folks at Festina. In 99 were you calling for Lance to be treated the same as they were?


To be honest I wasn't into cycling back in 1999. I was a runner. Maybe you can help fill in the blanks on what you're saying. As far as I am aware, Armstrong tested positive for cortisone in 1999 and most everyone accepted the backdated saddle sore hall pass excuse. Why would I think that '99 Armstrong should be treated similarly to those who got caught red handed with enough drugs to kill a horse?


----------



## kiwisimon

Local Hero said:


> There is some perception that Armstrong was the *worst, the originator, the motivator, and the biggest cheat *of all. Now he's partially gutted and hung upside on the dock for all to see. It's safe to go back in the water! People are gawking and taking pictures. Maybe a few other small fish have been caught with small punishment. But some are kicking Armstrong's strung up corpse, as if to doll out punishment that should have been meted out on other cheats.


Well how many of those other cheats used their financial and political resources to threaten and browbeat others into silence or quitting the sport? Lance deserves the biggest ******* label and he is hardly a corpse. Dude should have fessed up, left his lawyers to look after his own interests without attacking others and kept a bunch of cash, okay maybe not the cash thing, actually he wouldn't be much if you take away the 7 "wins". Can you name a bigger cheat off the top of your head?


----------



## badge118

kiwisimon said:


> Well how many of those other cheats used their financial and political resources to threaten and browbeat others into silence or quitting the sport? Lance deserves the biggest ******* label and he is hardly a corpse. Dude should have fessed up, left his lawyers to look after his own interests without attacking others and kept a bunch of cash, okay maybe not the cash thing, actually he wouldn't be much if you take away the 7 "wins". Can you name a bigger cheat off the top of your head?


Well if by cheater you mean doper Anquetile comes to mind, and most of team Telekom/T-Mobile, the people involved in OP, Hamilton, Landis.... The only POSSIBLE difference is that the other guys came off with smiles, not as the "ugly American" and/or did not get away with it as long.

That said neither WADA, UCI, nor USADA rules allow for enhanced penalties for being an ******* about doping and how you cover it up. If someone wants to get justice for say being blackballed from contracts or liable... You file a law suit. Your rationalization is pretty much the text book emotionally based rage monster that some people are *****ing about. Personal animus and emotion have NO business in any prosecution...criminal, civil or sporting.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> There is some perception that Armstrong was the worst, the originator, the motivator, and the biggest cheat of all.


No there isn't. Nobody is saying this. It is lance's latest strawman.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> Well if by cheater you mean doper Anquetile comes to mind, and most of team Telekom/T-Mobile, the people involved in OP, Hamilton, Landis.... The only POSSIBLE difference is that the other guys came off with smiles, not as the "ugly American" and/or did not get away with it as long.
> 
> That said neither WADA, UCI, nor USADA rules allow for enhanced penalties for being an ******* about doping and how you cover it up. If someone wants to get justice for say being blackballed from contracts or liable... You file a law suit. Your rationalization is pretty much the text book emotionally based rage monster that some people are *****ing about. Personal animus and emotion have NO business in any prosecution...criminal, civil or sporting.


Lance's sanction was base on fact, not emotion. Good you finally came to your senses and realized this


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> No there isn't. Nobody is saying this. It is lance's latest strawman.


post #85?


----------



## kiwisimon

Local Hero said:


> post #85?


I don't think my one opinion makes a general perception. But to reiterate I do think Lance is the biggest douchebag in cycling that I know of. Anquetile never covered up his drug use or threatened people who mentioned it.


----------



## spade2you

kiwisimon said:


> I don't think my one opinion makes a general perception. But to reiterate I do think Lance is the biggest douchebag in cycling that I know of. Anquetile never covered up his drug use or threatened people who mentioned it.


Is racing about winning or personality?


----------



## Coolhand

kiwisimon said:


> I don't think my one opinion makes a general perception. But to reiterate I do think Lance is the biggest douchebag in cycling that I know of. Anquetile never covered up his drug use or threatened people who mentioned it.


What about the Badger then? Huge DB? Check. Cover up? Check.


----------



## spade2you

Coolhand said:


> What about the Badger then? Huge DB? Check. Cover up? Check.


Badger punching someone=cool. 

Contador punching someone=how dare he!


----------



## aclinjury

perhaps Lance Armstrong's biggest character fault is his competitive nature. Had he simply not make the "comeback", then he would have gotten away with it all. It's like a thief who is about to get away with the biggest $100 million dollar diamond heist in history, but then only to be caught when he had to come back to pick up that measely half carat earings he dropped because he was so greedy.

A man has got to know when to walk away.


----------



## foto

Coolhand said:


> What about the Badger then? Huge DB? Check. Cover up? Check.


There's no rule against being a db, nor trying to cover it up.


----------



## kiwisimon

Coolhand said:


> What about the Badger then? Huge DB? Check. Cover up? Check.


Maybe it's the trifecta, DB, Bully and Doper. LA wins the pool. Badger you're right A hole and threatening but never tested positive. He also took care of protestors so earns positive rep.


----------



## foto

I thought hinault was liked by the other racers.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

foto said:


> I thought hinault was liked by the other racers.


He is. Greg and Kathy still talk highly of him. They say that outside of 86 he was an excellent teammate and person. The problem in 86 was more poor management by Paul Köchli then Hinault


----------



## Local Hero

At least we know that the doping wasn't a moral issue for these guys. The vast majority of the peloton was on EPO when Festina happened. And we can rest assured that the 1980s dopers on pot belge would have taken EPO if given the opportunity.


----------



## spade2you

Local Hero said:


> At least we know that the doping wasn't a moral issue for these guys. The vast majority of the peloton was on EPO when Festina happened. And we can rest assured that the 1980s dopers on pot belge would have taken EPO if given the opportunity.


I would assume a few who still raced in the 90's partook.


----------



## rufus

badge118 said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> This. I mentioned this before and was basically basically told to shut up, largely because some allow their personal animosity to corrupt any appearance of credibility or an actual attempt at true justice.
> 
> For any system to have credibility and for their to be confidence in it's justice, the system must be seen as impartial. Yes some may get a visceral thrill when they see someone they dislike get nailed HARD but when the next guy, who did something largely similar, gets a lesser punishment questions are asked and doubt in the system festers.


When these other guys get nailed for doping, are they attacking their accusers in the media? Using their business and media connections to threaten their livelihood? Calling them liars, cheats, *****s, psychopaths? Threatening legal action? Deliberately waging a long term smear campaign against their accusers, all the while proclaiming their saintliness? 

If not, then no, they're not largely similar.


----------



## rufus

Local Hero said:


> There is some perception that Armstrong was the worst, the originator, the motivator, and the biggest cheat of all. Now he's partially gutted and hung upside on the dock for all to see. It's safe to go back in the water! People are gawking and taking pictures. Maybe a few other small fish have been caught with small punishment. But some are kicking Armstrong's strung up corpse, as if to doll out punishment that should have been meted out on other cheats.


perception by who? The Lance apologists who think this is why everyone else hates him so? Cause from what I've seen here, the ones like you and spade and badge are the only ones putting forth this sort of thing.


----------



## rufus

Local Hero said:


> post #85?


I see nowhere in that post where it claims Lance was the originator of doping, or the primary motivator for others to dope. Nor is he saying that everything's fine now that lance has been caught, it's safe to go back in the peloton(water). That's solely what you, Local and spade keep saying we're saying. 

Sure, he might be saying that he was the biggest or worst of the cheaters, and with 7 Tours de France titles, that argument can certainly be made.


----------



## spade2you

rufus said:


> perception by who? The Lance apologists who think this is why everyone else hates him so? Cause from what I've seen here, the ones like you and spade and badge are the only ones putting forth this sort of thing.


LOL, because we're not haters we're automatically apologists. It would be name calling if I did something like that. So, please do not confuse me with being an apologist or don't call me by that name because I have been reported and neg rep'd by angry MAMILs for a lot less. 

He's an awful person. Having raced for a while, I know some guys who are Cat 6 and ruthless. I have also worked for some pretty evil people. As a whole, cyclists aren't exactly a warm and fuzzy group. Still, not nearly as bad as musicians, but that's another story for another day. 

Local and I simply agree that there are a lot of dirty hands in the game of cycling. It has always been this way and always will be. Entirely too many people take Lance too personally. While I think he's a turd, he has done nothing to me directly. We're also not the only ones who think this way. I have received a "few" PMs who would say more, but feel that a few of y'all like to gang up on them and take a little too much pleasure in doing so.


----------



## love4himies

> Originally Posted by Local Hero View Post
> There is some perception that Armstrong was the worst, the originator, the motivator, and the biggest cheat of all.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> No there isn't. Nobody is saying this. It is lance's latest strawman.


Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian




> “The evidence of the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team-run scheme is overwhelming,” USADA chief executive Travis T. Tygart said.
> 
> “The evidence shows beyond any doubt that the US Postal Service Pro Cycling Team ran the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.”


Ok maybe not the "originator", but you get the drift. As Joe Public is reading these quotes in the media they are getting the impression that doping wasn't really going on until big, bad Lance came along. AND that Postal was the absolute worse at doping, when in fact, the reality was that there wasn't one clean team on the pro tours.

Edit: the link name didn't work. Don't know how to do so.


----------



## love4himies

spade2you said:


> Local and I simply agree that there are a lot of dirty hands in the game of cycling. It has always been this way and always will be. Entirely too many people take Lance too personally. While I think he's a turd, he has done nothing to me directly. We're also not the only ones who think this way. I have received a "few" PMs who would say more, but feel that a few of y'all like to gang up on them and take a little too much pleasure in doing so.


That's how I think too. 

Cycling is a business and to stay in business you have to succeed. To succeed at races you have to win. To win at races back in the 90's and early 2000's you had to dope. If you didn't dope your team loses, your team sponsors don't renew, your team folds. 

Now back to Bruyneel. I truly believe that he should have gotten the same as Lance. He was their leader and he encouraged and abetted doping, that to me, makes it worse than one of the cyclists on the team doing it. Bruyneel had the power to bring a stop to it.


----------



## badge118

love4himies said:


> That's how I think too.
> 
> Cycling is a business and to stay in business you have to succeed. To succeed at races you have to win. To win at races back in the 90's and early 2000's you had to dope. If you didn't dope your team loses, your team sponsors don't renew, your team folds.
> 
> Now back to Bruyneel. I truly believe that he should have gotten the same as Lance. He was their leader and he encouraged and abetted doping, that to me, makes it worse than one of the cyclists on the team doing it. Bruyneel had the power to bring a stop to it.


The last bit is my point. The whole basis of the life time ban on LA was the fact it was the "most sophisticated doping program yet found" (though I would argue t-mobs appeared to be similar). You can not have such a team wide system without the boss of that team leading the charge as well...ergo he should have received the same punishment.


----------



## badge118

rufus said:


> When these other guys get nailed for doping, are they attacking their accusers in the media? Using their business and media connections to threaten their livelihood? Calling them liars, cheats, *****s, psychopaths? Threatening legal action? Deliberately waging a long term smear campaign against their accusers, all the while proclaiming their saintliness?
> 
> If not, then no, they're not largely similar.


As I said before there is NOTHING in the doping rules that allow for what you say. If you want to pursue that angle you sue for slander, use whistle blower statutes etc. The doping rules are VERY specific and to enhance penalties outside of that system of rules is to invite questions about the fairness and impartiality of the system. The fairness and impartiality is vital. Not only for prevention... Letting the would be doper not have a "well that guy got off easier and that could be me" excuse, but for those standing outside the system. If those outside the system start to say "who gives a flying fudge the system is corrupt" you lose the moral support that drives the authorities to enforce the rules, you lose the political support that supplies the money needed to enforce the rules and the enforcers of the rules lose the respect and credibility needed to get the judgments needed to enforce the rules. 

I know from over a decade and a half of enforcing rules that without credibility the system suffers.


----------



## spade2you

badge118 said:


> The last bit is my point. The whole basis of the life time ban on LA was the fact it was the "most sophisticated doping program yet found" (though I would argue t-mobs appeared to be similar). You can not have such a team wide system without the boss of that team leading the charge as well...ergo he should have received the same punishment.


Was it US Postal or T-Mobile's fault that Kelme couldn't even infuse the right bags or if Rabobank's yogurt went bad?


----------



## Local Hero

rufus said:


> I see nowhere in that post where it claims Lance was the originator of doping, or the primary motivator for others to dope. Nor is he saying that everything's fine now that lance has been caught, it's safe to go back in the peloton(water). That's solely what you, Local and spade keep saying we're saying


Some have argued that it was important to get after a retired Armstrong because it sends a message to the other cheats. And it was important to throw the book at him because he was a big meanie. Like it or not this makes Armstrong a bit of a martyr. 


> Sure, he might be saying that he was the biggest or worst of the cheaters, and with 7 Tours de France titles, that argument can certainly be made.


If he came in second place 7 times would he be any less of a cheater? 


Also, why does the sophistication of US Postal's program so damning? In Festina times and earlier they just drove around with drugs/blood in coolers. The most sophisticated anti-detection methods were false bottom coolers. Lance had motoman. So? Ultimately it was just guys taking drugs/blood to ride faster.


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> Some have argued that it was important to get after a retired Armstrong


what?


----------



## rufus

badge118 said:


> I know from over a decade and a half of enforcing rules that without credibility the system suffers.


yeah, that's why so many Wall St. bankers are doing time in the big house. cause rules are enforced fairly and impartially.


----------



## foto

rufus said:


> yeah, that's why so many Wall St. bankers are doing time in the big house. cause rules are enforced fairly and impartially.


the system is suffering.


----------



## Local Hero

den bakker said:


> what?


What?


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> What?


im a bit confused I guess. did he have a license?


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> Some have argued that it was important to get after a retired Armstrong ...


Since Armstrong was competing under a professional license subject to USADA at the time the case was brought, anyone who argues this is woefully ignorant. How can anyone take such a person or argument seriously?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

love4himies said:


> they are getting the impression that doping wasn't really going on until big, bad Lance came along.


After Festina, TVM, Operation Puerto, Frieburg Report, etc, etc, Only the incredibly naive would have this impression. Lance fans may have been surprised, but cycling fans already knew


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> After Festina, TVM, Operation Puerto, Frieburg Report, etc, etc, Only the incredibly naive would have this impression. Lance fans may have been surprised, but cycling fans already knew


Were Operation Puerto and the Frieburg Report before or after Armstrong's TdF victories?


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> Were Operation Puerto and the Frieburg Report before or after Armstrong's TdF victories?


nice cherry picking. of course we know why.


----------



## Local Hero

den bakker said:


> nice cherry picking. of course we know why.


Why?

The arrow of time and critical thinking?


----------



## asgelle

Local Hero said:


> Why?
> It's not rational to suggest that "cycling fans" knew that Armstrong was cheating from 199-2001 because of events that occurred five years later. Come on, use your critical thinking.


The events of 1999 with Armstrong and the cortisone positive were proof of doping and cheating (through the entire post-dated TUE affair) the moment it became public (during the 1999 Tour).


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Were Operation Puerto and the Frieburg Report before or after Armstrong's TdF victories?


If you actually read the discussion instead of hunting for things to troll about you would see that the claim was USADA was trying to give the impression that



> the impression that doping wasn't really going on until big, bad Lance came along.


Any fan who follows sport for more then 3 weeks in July knows this is nonsense. The vast majority of cycling fans were not shocked by USADA's report. 

Lance has made it clear that he has lost the cycling fan. He knows he will never get them back. His target now are the clueless general public who might fall for his "Level playing field" "Victim" "Witch hunt" nonsense.


----------



## badge118

rufus said:


> yeah, that's why so many Wall St. bankers are doing time in the big house. cause rules are enforced fairly and impartially.


When u understand the difference between civil/SEC rules and criminal/DoJ rules... burden of evidence... terms like mens rea (necessary for criminal charges this "big house" sentences) get back to me. Hell I bet you can't even tell us what the burden of evidence is under a WADA sanctioned proceeding.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If you actually read the discussion instead of hunting for things to troll about you would see that the claim was USADA was trying to give the impression that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doping wasn't really going on until big, bad Lance came along
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any fan who follows sport for more then 3 weeks in July knows this is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Can you please explain how two events that happened *after* Armstrong's reign of terror help show that doping was a problem prior to Armstrong?


----------



## foto

badge118 said:


> When u understand the difference between civil/SEC rules and criminal/DoJ rules... burden of evidence... terms like mens rea (necessary for criminal charges this "big house" sentences) get back to me. Hell I bet you can't even tell us what the burden of evidence is under a WADA sanctioned proceeding.


I didn't realize fraud was a civil rule. Learn something new every day.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> Can you please explain how two events that happened *after* Armstrong's reign of terror help show that doping was a problem prior to Armstrong?


Reading is not your thing is it?


----------



## badge118

foto said:


> I didn't realize fraud was a civil rule. Learn something new every day.


I didn't realize that the WADA or USADA rules gave them authority to pursue fraud. That is what whistle blower cases are for and <gasp> there is one. 

My point is that there are proper venues and adding on penalties for a justification that is outside the rules is breaking the rules as well.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> I didn't realize that the WADA or USADA rules gave them authority to pursue fraud. That is what whistle blower cases are for and <gasp> there is one.
> 
> My point is that there are proper venues and adding on penalties for a justification that is outside the rules is breaking the rules as well.


Lance was punished within the rules. Johan got off easy......maybe they felt sorry for him, not the sharpest tool in the shed.


----------



## Local Hero

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Reading is not your thing is it?


More personal attacks?


----------



## stretch512

I can't even believe this thread is still going strong. Freakin get over it people, guys are so concerned with what other people are doing its just ridiculous. Let a sleeping dog be, obviously the new era is here and news flash... people are being popped for doping. What a surprise!


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Lance was punished within the rules. Johan got off easy......maybe they felt sorry for him, not the sharpest tool in the shed.


I am not saying, by definition, he was punished outside the rules...only that many are raging that factors that lay outside the rules justify harsher punishments. Your take I can respect. The idea that being an ******* however means authorities can and should step beyond the rules is what drives me nuts. Nothing justifies it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> I am not saying, by definition, he was punished outside the rules...only that many are raging that factors that lay outside the rules justify harsher punishments. Your take I can respect. The idea that being an ******* however means authorities can and should step beyond the rules is what drives me nuts. Nothing justifies it.


You might have a point if the authorities stepped beyond the rules.....but they haven't


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You might have a point if the authorities stepped beyond the rules.....but they haven't


My point is the public perception. In high profile cases v the authorities must be doubly careful that they make things clear. In this case this would mean a lifetime been for Johann as well. You can't afford even the appearance of personal animus in a case like this... Especially when people clearly share the same animus.


----------



## asgelle

badge118 said:


> My point is the public perception. In high profile cases v the authorities must be doubly careful that they make things clear. In this case this would mean a lifetime been for Johann as well. You can't afford even the appearance of personal animus in a case like this... Especially when people clearly share the same animus.


I don't know if you're deliberately trying to confuse the situation or are just confused yourself, but you talk as though there were some monolithic "authorities." You must realize that USADA (the only body that proposed sanctions for Armstrong and Bruyneel) did, in fact, propose the same penalty for both. Armstrong accepted this sanction; Bruyneel chose to take his case to arbitration. Given the independence of the arbitration panel, why do you expect the outcome to be the same? Or are you suggesting there be collusion between USADA and the independent arbitrators?

Let's face reality. All this talk of animus and unfair treatment originated with Armstrong and despite all the evidence to the contrary has been picked up by his minions to confuse the issue.


----------



## ArkRider

badge118 said:


> My point is the public perception. In high profile cases v the authorities must be doubly careful that they make things clear. In this case this would mean a lifetime been for Johann as well. You can't afford even the appearance of personal animus in a case like this... Especially when people clearly share the same animus.


So the just system is trial by media? Damn the facts and the process, sound bites and Internet ramblings rule?

Your argument seems to be that if two people are accused and a punishment proposed, and the first person chooses to accept that punishment and not dispute the charge, then the fair process is to disallow the second an opportunity to dispute the charge because putting up a defense may result in a more lenient punishment and if the masses do not bother to read past a headline they won't know why the two received different punishments.

Rather bizarre concept.


----------



## badge118

ArkRider said:


> So the just system is trial by media? Damn the facts and the process, sound bites and Internet ramblings rule?
> 
> Your argument seems to be that if two people are accused and a punishment proposed, and the first person chooses to accept that punishment and not dispute the charge, then the fair process is to disallow the second an opportunity to dispute the charge because putting up a defense may result in a more lenient punishment and if the masses do not bother to read past a headline they won't know why the two received different punishments.
> 
> Rather bizarre concept.


No not the media. A system of Justice and those who serve it, and make no mistake the WADA protocols is a system of Justice for sport, should for its own sake always strive to avoid any appearance of impropriety and for the people it serves, because this is one of the core Principles of any modern system of Justice.

When we talk about just prosecutions in crimes, in Justice being blind








Do we say "it is for the media?" No we do not, we are speaking of principles that we have held dear for centuries as a nation and that philosophers have spoke of for millennia. 

My point is not what you twist it to be. Johann's entire defense was "I am not in your jurisdiction." He lost yet still got a lower penalty? There was no plea bargain here, there was/is no mitigating circumstance between the two cases that an active defense made. Hell Johann by all accounts was the guy who actually did the real dirty work that made the system work. If you think the two different decisions were based on the facts that fall within the rules of the WADA protocols I suppose you have a VERY different definition of what a fact is than legal systems use.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> No not the media. A system of Justice and those who serve it, and make no mistake the WADA protocols is a system of Justice for sport, should for its own sake always strive to avoid any appearance of impropriety and for the people it serves, because this is one of the core Principles of any modern system of Justice.
> 
> When we talk about just prosecutions in crimes, in Justice being blind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we say "it is for the media?" No we do not, we are speaking of principles that we have held dear for centuries as a nation and that philosophers have spoke of for millennia.
> 
> My point is not what you twist it to be. Johann's entire defense was "I am not in your jurisdiction." He lost yet still got a lower penalty? There was no plea bargain here, there was/is no mitigating circumstance between the two cases that an active defense made. Hell Johann by all accounts was the guy who actually did the real dirty work that made the system work. If you think the two different decisions were based on the facts that fall within the rules of the WADA protocols I suppose you have a VERY different definition of what a fact is than legal systems use.


You really should take some time to read the arbitrators decision.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You really should take some time to read the arbitrators decision.


First I did read both (which is important to read both.). I also read Tygart's various statements and the statements of Johann and Lance.

As I said, if one makes a deal...okay plea bargains happen all the time. If he was not as entrenched in the dirt... okay there too. If there was some sort of mitigating circumstance... again okay.

However when one looks at the facts of the case Johann's involvement and Johann's self serving statements before and after.... most notably raised here... http://www.johanbruyneel.com/blog/article/statement-johan-bruyneel-regarding-aaa-decision

IMO the only difference between JB and LA is that Johann throughout did your "typical" cycling spin. While arranging for the dope for the team, getting riders hooked up with the right prepatore etc, he smiled for the cameras...only made a statement when cornered... In essence he was "civilized." On the other hand Lance was an arrogant SOB. He sued people when he really didn't have to, got people black balled, painted people as liars in technicolor detail in interviews and basically bullied people acting as an uncivilized "ugly American."

I am damn glad they both got nailed. I just think that the evidence shows that while Lance was indeed the "fuel" for the doping program, Johann was the engine. The program was equally dependant on the both of them and as such the both of them should have received equal punishment.


----------



## asgelle

badge118 said:


> IMO the only difference between JB and LA is that Johann throughout did your "typical" cycling spin..


That's the only difference you can find? After reading the decisions, as you say you did, you didn't notice that one willingly accepted a lifetime ban, while the other did not and had his case heard by an arbitration panel? How carefully were you reading?


----------



## rufus

badge118 said:


> I am not saying, by definition, he was punished outside the rules...only that many are raging that factors that lay outside the rules justify harsher punishments. Your take I can respect. The idea that being an ******* however means authorities can and should step beyond the rules is what drives me nuts. Nothing justifies it.


No, the fact that he's an ******* is why so many take pleasure in his punishment.


----------



## rufus

badge118 said:


> No not the media. A system of Justice and those who serve it, and make no mistake the WADA protocols is a system of Justice for sport, should for its own sake always strive to avoid any appearance of impropriety and for the people it serves, because this is one of the core Principles of any modern system of Justice.
> 
> When we talk about just prosecutions in crimes, in Justice being blind
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we say "it is for the media?" No we do not, we are speaking of principles that we have held dear for centuries as a nation and that philosophers have spoke of for millennia.


So why can two different people accused of the same crime, selling cocaine say, receive different penalties?


----------



## spade2you

rufus said:


> No, the fact that he's an ******* is why so many take pleasure in his punishment.


I love revenge a little more than the next guy. I still think it's a bit peculiar that you would take pleasure in revenge, even though you were never involved.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> First I did read both (which is important to read both.).


I find that hard to believe as you are missing so many of the key elements of the cases. 

*Johan never committed perjury (Lance did)
*Testimony of witnesses who would prove that Johan lied in an official proceeding was tossed out because it was only a signed affidavit and not a live, or video, testimony in front of the panel

Because of this USADA was not able to toll the SOL. The had to focus on actions from 2004 onward. It is clear, if you actually read the decision, that Johan was far more cautious by then. It may have been possible to give him a life ban for his actions post 2004 but that would have increased the likelihood of appeal to CAS. They went the safe route. Smart choice


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> I love revenge a little more than the next guy. I still think it's a bit peculiar that you would take pleasure in revenge, even though you were never involved.


Yeah.....Whats with all those people happy that Madoff is in prison? He never took money from them.:thumbsup:


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah.....Whats with all those people happy that Madoff is in prison? He never took money from them.:thumbsup:


Lance is much worse of a person than Madoff. Madoff only stole from the rich.


----------



## badge118

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I find that hard to believe as you are missing so many of the key elements of the cases.
> 
> *Johan never committed perjury (Lance did)
> *Testimony of witnesses who would prove that Johan lied in an official proceeding was tossed out because it was only a signed affidavit and not a live, or video, testimony in front of the panel
> 
> Because of this USADA was not able to toll the SOL. The had to focus on actions from 2004 onward. It is clear, if you actually read the decision, that Johan was far more cautious by then. It may have been possible to give him a life ban for his actions post 2004 but that would have increased the likelihood of appeal to CAS. They went the safe route. Smart choice


If I remember correctly Armstrong committed actual perjury in sworn testimony OUTSIDE of the auspices of the USADA. So this is where we come back to my point mentioned earlier about correct venues. Could the State of Texas pursue him for lying under oath in the suit regarding the Insurance Company pay out? Possibly. Could the Crown Prosecutor pursue him for the case regarding the Sunday Times case or could the Sunday Times now sue because they settled out of Court? Maybe. Could the French Gov't go after him for a frivolous suit (which he did drop in 2006)? I have no clue. To use these cases as a rationalization is outside the rules.

If we want to try and use the fact that he simply made unsworn lies to ADA investigators through out...then we could say the same of Johann as well because he was repeatedly interviewed as well.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

badge118 said:


> To use these cases as a rationalization is outside the rules.


I thought you said you read the reason decision? It is pretty clear that with your multiple inaccuracies you have read neither

After the USADA reason decision WADA submitted the evidence to an independent, external, review and they validated USADA tolling of the SOL based on Armstrong's perjury

WADA Will Not Appeal USADA Decision On Lance Armstrong | Cyclingnews.com


> "that opinion is clear and confirms that the interpretation given by USADA is proper and supported by case law".


----------



## rufus

spade2you said:


> I love revenge a little more than the next guy. I still think it's a bit peculiar that you would take pleasure in revenge, even though you were never involved.


there's this German word or something that will explain it for you. Look it up.


----------



## turbogrover

badge118 said:


> First I did read both (which is important to read both.). I also read Tygart's various statements and the statements of Johann and Lance.
> 
> As I said, if one makes a deal...okay plea bargains happen all the time. If he was not as entrenched in the dirt... okay there too. If there was some sort of mitigating circumstance... again okay.
> 
> However when one looks at the facts of the case Johann's involvement and Johann's self serving statements before and after.... most notably raised here... Blog
> 
> IMO the only difference between JB and LA is that Johann throughout did your "typical" cycling spin. While arranging for the dope for the team, getting riders hooked up with the right prepatore etc, he smiled for the cameras...only made a statement when cornered... In essence he was "civilized." On the other hand Lance was an arrogant SOB. He sued people when he really didn't have to, got people black balled, painted people as liars in technicolor detail in interviews and basically bullied people acting as an uncivilized "ugly American."
> 
> I am damn glad they both got nailed. I just think that the evidence shows that while Lance was indeed the "fuel" for the doping program, Johann was the engine. The program was equally dependant on the both of them and as such the both of them should have received equal punishment.


The only way your opinion could matter, is if you were part of the arbitration panel, arguing in deliberation. Otherwise it's just an opnion.

They decided Bruyneel's punishment based on the evidence given to them. Armstrong never got to that point, so he was given the penalty for breaking the rules. If he bothered to go to arbitration, he probably would've been given a lesser penalty.

Other riders were given plea bargains in exchange for lighter punishments. Why are you not arguing for those riders to receive punishments equal to Armstrong?

Not every murderer gets the death penalty either. The jury decides the punishment, or in this case, the arbitration panel.


----------



## Local Hero

turbogrover said:


> The only way your opinion could matter, is if you were part of the arbitration panel, arguing in deliberation. Otherwise it's just an opnion.


That goes for many of our opinions. And opnions.


----------



## Bluenote

rufus said:


> there's this German word or something that will explain it for you. Look it up.


Watching people "profit" from being cheats, theives, bullies - while "honest guys" get screwed is hard. It takes the things you were taught growing up - don't cheat, don't lie (under oath), don't push people around - and flips it on its head. Be good and get screwed, be an a-hole and succeed mightily. 

To me watching Armstrong, Brunyeel, Ferrari, McQuaid, A-Rod, Bonds, Madoff, etc... get popped says "hey, crime really doesn't pay." 

I take more pleasure out of watching guys like Basson be vindicated, then out of Armstrong being hammered. 

I also feel like both Hamilton and Millar are better people for having quit doping and come clean. I think at first they did it for the wrong reasons. But I think now they are happy to be living more honest lives.


----------



## Local Hero

Bluenote said:


> I also feel like both Hamilton and Millar are better people for having quit doping and come clean. I think at first they did it for the wrong reasons. But I think now they are happy to be living more honest lives.


How long until you find it in your heart to forgive Armstrong?


----------



## Bluenote

Local Hero said:


> How long until you find it in your heart to forgive Armstrong?


Those Michelob Ultra commercials were just a bridge to far. The image of him acting douchie while drinking weak piss is forever etched in my memory. 

A mortal sin, beyond forgiveness. 

Dammit, I'm Irish, we take our beer seriously.


----------



## badge118

turbogrover said:


> The only way your opinion could matter, is if you were part of the arbitration panel, arguing in deliberation. Otherwise it's just an opnion.
> 
> They decided Bruyneel's punishment based on the evidence given to them. Armstrong never got to that point, so he was given the penalty for breaking the rules. If he bothered to go to arbitration, he probably would've been given a lesser penalty.
> 
> Other riders were given plea bargains in exchange for lighter punishments. Why are you not arguing for those riders to receive punishments equal to Armstrong?
> 
> Not every murderer gets the death penalty either. The jury decides the punishment, or in this case, the arbitration panel.


Because plea bargains are part of any prosecutorial process as are the use of confidential informants etc.?


----------



## Coolhand

*Moderators Note*

Enough of the personal insult stuff. Stay on point or posting vacations shall be issued. You can disagree without impugning each other motives, intellect or ethics.


----------



## The Tedinator

Coolhand said:


> Enough of the personal insult stuff. Stay on point or posting vacations shall be issued. You can disagree without impugning each other motives, intellect or ethics.


But Coolhand, where is the fun in that?


----------



## sir duke

The Tedinator said:


> But Coolhand, where is the fun in that?


You come to the doping forum for _fun_? Shame on you! (Being satirical here Coolio, is that allowed?)


----------



## Fireform

I guess telling someone to HTFU only gets you reported here.


----------

