New allegations in Italy

2

Comments

  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    It's the amount that concerns me.
    Over $3 million sounds like a heck of a lot of "product" for one man.
    Either we have Menchov as the bag man for systematic doping,
    or as a dealer middle man.

    So, a large cog in the Ferrari machine.


    Or alternatively this could end up like a lot of these things tend to do , that is peter out to nothing but rumour and innuendo. To a lot in here these stories are more to their taste than the actual racing itself.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    It's the amount that concerns me.
    Over $3 million sounds like a heck of a lot of "product" for one man.
    Either we have Menchov as the bag man for systematic doping,
    or as a dealer middle man.

    So, a large cog in the Ferrari machine.


    Or alternatively this could end up like a lot of these things tend to do , that is peter out to nothing but rumour and innuendo. To a lot in here these stories are more to their taste than the actual racing itself.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    It's the amount that concerns me.
    Over $3 million sounds like a heck of a lot of "product" for one man.
    Either we have Menchov as the bag man for systematic doping,
    or as a dealer middle man.

    So, a large cog in the Ferrari machine.


    Or alternatively this could end up like a lot of these things tend to do , that is peter out to nothing but rumour and innuendo. To a lot in here these stories are more to their taste than the actual racing itself.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    It's the amount that concerns me.
    Over $3 million sounds like a heck of a lot of "product" for one man.
    Either we have Menchov as the bag man for systematic doping,
    or as a dealer middle man.

    So, a large cog in the Ferrari machine.


    Or alternatively this could end up like a lot of these things tend to do , that is peter out to nothing but rumour and innuendo. To a lot in here these stories are more to their taste than the actual racing itself.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    It's the amount that concerns me.
    Over $3 million sounds like a heck of a lot of "product" for one man.
    Either we have Menchov as the bag man for systematic doping,
    or as a dealer middle man.

    So, a large cog in the Ferrari machine.

    Or alternatively this could end up like a lot of these things tend to do , that is peter out to nothing but rumour and innuendo. To a lot in here these stories are more to their taste than the actual racing itself.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    JamLala wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    JamLala wrote:
    Objects in the rear view mirror and all that......jeez must we constantly be looking backwards. Armstrong has retired, move on.

    Menchov hasn't though, nor has Scarponi. Doesn't look like Ferarri has either.

    A fair point, but must LA be brought up at any/every opportunity?!

    For many that in here that is there raison d'etre
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,460
    Looks like the Moray Gub bot needs a reboot.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,558
    Moray Gub wrote:
    JamLala wrote:
    No tA Doctor wrote:
    JamLala wrote:
    Objects in the rear view mirror and all that......jeez must we constantly be looking backwards. Armstrong has retired, move on.

    Menchov hasn't though, nor has Scarponi. Doesn't look like Ferarri has either.

    A fair point, but must LA be brought up at any/every opportunity?!

    For many that in here that is there raison d'etre

    Perhaps you'd like to point out which of the posters on this thread, pretty much all of whom regularly contribute to threads about actual racing, you mean?

    Or perhaps it's just that the very mention of LA brings you up in a rash?
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Looks like I need to do a new graph tonight
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,558
    andyp wrote:
    Looks like the Moray Gub bot needs a reboot.


    Switch it off and then switch it back.... errr, maybe we could skip the last bit?


    ;-) Just kidding Moray, buit this ISN'T really much of a thread about LA, so maybe your shooting is a little scattergun in this case?
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • top_bhoy
    top_bhoy Posts: 1,424
    andyp wrote:
    Looks like the Moray Gub bot needs a reboot.
    Nah.....he's just trying to get his point across :wink:
    Click here to view Top_Bhoys Pedal Force:
    Click here to view Top_Bhoys RC2:
  • jimmythecuckoo
    jimmythecuckoo Posts: 4,716
    Most reposts in BR history !!!!!!!!!

    Makes this thread a winner for me.
    http://fendrieneu.home.blog
    My blog and pod...
    Beers of Belgium Cycling Club UK
  • Cumulonimbus
    Cumulonimbus Posts: 1,730
    Ferrari gives his opinion

    http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=100
  • Doobz
    Doobz Posts: 2,800
    Cumulonimbus wrote:
    Ferrari gives his opinion

    http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=100

    He said he NEVER did any of the things he is accused of so he must be innocent..
    cartoon.jpg
  • afx237vi
    afx237vi Posts: 12,630
    Cumulonimbus wrote:
    Ferrari gives his opinion

    http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=100

    The most implausible thing so far... an Italian who claims to file tax returns :shock:
  • SunWuKong
    SunWuKong Posts: 364
    I thought Ferrari got off on a technicality (statute of limitations) not that he was actually proven innocent?
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Doobz wrote:
    Cumulonimbus wrote:
    Ferrari gives his opinion

    http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=100

    He said he NEVER did any of the things he is accused of so he must be innocent..

    Well until proved otherwise he is .
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,460
    SunWuKong wrote:
    I thought Ferrari got off on a technicality (statute of limitations) not that he was actually proven innocent?

    He did.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    SunWuKong wrote:
    I thought Ferrari got off on a technicality (statute of limitations) not that he was actually proven innocent?


    "the Italian appeals court absolved Ferrari of guilt on both the charges of sporting fraud and the charges relating to abuse of his medical license to write prescriptions "because the facts do not exist" to support these charges"


    You can argue until you are blue in the face the rights and wrongs of it but that does nt seem like a technicality to me.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,460
    What's your source?
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Nice try Gubster, but you're wrong. Half right, but that means half wrong too

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dr-ferr ... -armstrong

    So he was cleared of one, but not the other.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    andyp wrote:
    What's your source?


    cyclingnews.com:

    Michele Ferrari absolved of all charges by Italian appeals court

    By Tim Maloney, European Editor

    In a decision earlier this week, an Italian Court of Appeal in Bologna absolved Dr. Michele Ferrari of the sporting fraud charges related to accusations by Filippo Simeoni, as well as charges of abusing his medical license to write prescriptions "because the facts do not exist" to support these charges.

    Ferrari was the preparatore for many top cyclists, most notably Lance Armstrong. On October 1, 2004, Ferrari was convicted of sporting fraud and abusing his medical license to write prescriptions and sentenced by Judge Maurizio Passarini to suspend his medical license for one year and a fine of €900. One of Ferrari's main accusers was Simeoni, who Ferrari worked with from late 1996 to late 1997, claimed that Ferrari had given him erythropoietin (epo) and Andriol (synthetic testosterone). But the appeals court found that Simeoni's accusations against Ferrari had no basis in fact and threw out Passarini's judgement.

    After the successful appeal, Ferrari's attorney Dario Bolognesi said, "We're satisfied with this verdict, but we are still awaiting the full text of the court's decision that will shed light on why they overturned the original decision, because we have requested that the previous decision is removed from Doctor Ferrari's record. And we may also sue for damages."


    So was it a technicality or not ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Moray Gub wrote:
    SunWuKong wrote:
    I thought Ferrari got off on a technicality (statute of limitations) not that he was actually proven innocent?


    "the Italian appeals court absolved Ferrari of guilt on both the charges of sporting fraud and the charges relating to abuse of his medical license to write prescriptions "because the facts do not exist" to support these charges"


    You can argue until you are blue in the face the rights and wrongs of it but that does nt seem like a technicality to me.
    Dr Ferrari went on trial in Bologna in 2005 for sporting fraud and illegally acting as a pharmacist in 2004. He was found guilty and given an 11-month suspended sentence but was later cleared of the illegal acting as a pharmacist on appeal. The accusations of sporting fraud were quashed due to the slow legal process in Italy and the statute of limitations.

    That does.
    _
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    iainf72 wrote:
    Nice try Gubster, but you're wrong. Half right, but that means half wrong too

    http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dr-ferr ... -armstrong

    So he was cleared of one, but not the other.


    So when it says the other was quashed does that mean it wasn't quashed or he still faces charges or he wans't cleared.......how confusing is their legal system when a man gets the charges quashed yet he still wanst cleared , surely if there is no case then there in no need to be cleared ? But i will grant you a technicality on the SF charge.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    SunWuKong wrote:
    I thought Ferrari got off on a technicality (statute of limitations) not that he was actually proven innocent?


    "the Italian appeals court absolved Ferrari of guilt on both the charges of sporting fraud and the charges relating to abuse of his medical license to write prescriptions "because the facts do not exist" to support these charges"


    You can argue until you are blue in the face the rights and wrongs of it but that does nt seem like a technicality to me.
    Dr Ferrari went on trial in Bologna in 2005 for sporting fraud and illegally acting as a pharmacist in 2004. He was found guilty and given an 11-month suspended sentence but was later cleared of the illegal acting as a pharmacist on appeal. The accusations of sporting fraud were quashed due to the slow legal process in Italy and the statute of limitations.

    That does.

    So its correct to say there was no case to answer then ?
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Moray Gub wrote:
    So its correct to say there was no case to answer then ?.

    Well there was. He was found guilty. By appealing, he then got it to go beyond the statute of limitations, thus getting him off.

    Is how I read it.

    So Ferarri's definitely dodgy, whatever else happens.

    Are people surprised he's caught up in a doping ring scandal? No.

    Are we surprised big name cyclists are involved, the same cyclists who have previously been linked to Ferrari? No.
    _
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    So its correct to say there was no case to answer then ?.

    Well there was. He was found guilty. By appealing, he then got it to go beyond the statute of limitations, thus getting him off.

    Is how I read it.

    So Ferarri's definitely dodgy, whatever else happens.

    Are people surprised he's caught up in a doping ring scandal? No.

    Are we surprised big name cyclists are involved, the same cyclists who have previously been linked to Ferrari? No.

    Ultimately there was no case to answer though due to Italian laws , its a bit like if i stood trial for murder in Scotland and remanded under the 110 day rule if the crown did not bring a prelim hearing in this time i walk free with no case to answer.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    So its correct to say there was no case to answer then ?.

    Well there was. He was found guilty. By appealing, he then got it to go beyond the statute of limitations, thus getting him off.

    Is how I read it.

    So Ferarri's definitely dodgy, whatever else happens.

    Are people surprised he's caught up in a doping ring scandal? No.

    Are we surprised big name cyclists are involved, the same cyclists who have previously been linked to Ferrari? No.

    Ultimately there was no case to answer though due to Italian laws , its a bit like if i stood trial for murder in Scotland and remanded under the 110 day rule if the crown did not bring a prelim hearing in this time i walk free with no case to answer.

    No it's not. He was found guilty. He appealed . the appeal took so long the whole case got thrown out.

    The only verdict that was ever given was that he was guilty. We never found out about the appeal verdict because it went beyond the statute of limitations.
    _
  • moray_gub
    moray_gub Posts: 3,328
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Moray Gub wrote:
    So its correct to say there was no case to answer then ?.

    Well there was. He was found guilty. By appealing, he then got it to go beyond the statute of limitations, thus getting him off.

    Is how I read it.

    So Ferarri's definitely dodgy, whatever else happens.

    Are people surprised he's caught up in a doping ring scandal? No.

    Are we surprised big name cyclists are involved, the same cyclists who have previously been linked to Ferrari? No.

    Ultimately there was no case to answer though due to Italian laws , its a bit like if i stood trial for murder in Scotland and remanded under the 110 day rule if the crown did not bring a prelim hearing in this time i walk free with no case to answer.

    No it's not. He was found guilty. He appealed . the appeal took so long the whole case got thrown out.

    The only verdict that was ever given was that he was guilty. We never found out about the appeal verdict because it went beyond the statute of limitations.

    The appeal didn't need to be heard because there was no case to answer so the guilty verdict then becomes legally irrelevant and in effect quashed. Dress it up how you want but that's the way it is.
    Gasping - but somehow still alive !
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    So what were the people thinking when they said he was guilty in the first place?

    Whether it's legally right or not is, in the context of my chat anyway, irrelevant.
    _

Categories