New allegations in Italy
Comments
-
Moray Gub wrote: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.
Found guilty by a Court or not, at the end of the day, Innocence untill proven guilty is a load of old balls, and i know because i work for MOJ, and in the cases of Ferrari, and just for you Moray, Lance Armstrong, we all know that they are Dirty, Grubby and Guilty. Especially Lance, the cheating, lieing, malicious 'i think im god' nobhead.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:[
Found guilty by a Court or not, at the end of the day, Innocence untill proven guilty is a load of old balls, and i know because i work for MOJ, and in the cases of Ferrari, and just for you Moray, Lance Armstrong, we all know that they are Dirty, Grubby and Guilty. Especially Lance, the cheating, lieing, malicious 'i think im god' nobhead.
Maybe we should just do away with legal systems and fling him in a river see if he drowns and if he doesn't then he is guilty and we burn him at the stake instead...........what dya think of that Mr MOJ man ?..........btw i am the Lord Advocate.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Moray Gub wrote:
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.
I've tried to find an English account of the appeal verdict other than the cyclingnews one but can't find anything.
As I recall, and I was in Italy at the time, the original verdict was overturned because the law under which Ferrari was charged wasn't actually statute when the alleged offences took place, i.e. he was charged under a new law. So in effect there was no case to answer as what he was charged with wasn't illegal at the time. Typical crazy Italian legal system nonsense, and I wish I could find an article that explained it.
I think the most pertinent conviction against Ferrari remains that passed down by the Italian Cycling Federation who have banned him from working with professional cyclists. They clearly think he's someone who shouldn't be involved in the sport.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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.
Of course judicial decisions have never been wrong before have they.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
andyp wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Moray Gub wrote:
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.
I've tried to find an English account of the appeal verdict other than the cyclingnews one but can't find anything.
As I recall, and I was in Italy at the time, the original verdict was overturned because the law under which Ferrari was charged wasn't actually statute when the alleged offences took place, i.e. he was charged under a new law. So in effect there was no case to answer as what he was charged with wasn't illegal at the time. Typical crazy Italian legal system nonsense, and I wish I could find an article that explained it.
I think the most pertinent conviction against Ferrari remains that passed down by the Italian Cycling Federation who have banned him from working with professional cyclists. They clearly think he's someone who shouldn't be involved in the sport.
I dont see whats crazy about that, if it is not an offence at the time it was supposed to have been committed then the guilty charge is quite frankly a nonsense and is rightly chucked out and the guilty verdict means absolute diddly squat..In fact to me thats not a technicality thats basic justice.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
Moray Gub wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:[
Found guilty by a Court or not, at the end of the day, Innocence untill proven guilty is a load of old balls, and i know because i work for MOJ, and in the cases of Ferrari, and just for you Moray, Lance Armstrong, we all know that they are Dirty, Grubby and Guilty. Especially Lance, the cheating, lieing, malicious 'i think im god' nobhead.
Maybe we should just do away with legal systems and fling him in a river see if he drowns and if he doesn't then he is guilty and we burn him at the stake instead...........what dya think of that Mr MOJ man ?..........btw i am the Lord Advocate.
I think thats a pretty good idea, actually.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:[
Found guilty by a Court or not, at the end of the day, Innocence untill proven guilty is a load of old balls, and i know because i work for MOJ, and in the cases of Ferrari, and just for you Moray, Lance Armstrong, we all know that they are Dirty, Grubby and Guilty. Especially Lance, the cheating, lieing, malicious 'i think im god' nobhead.
Maybe we should just do away with legal systems and fling him in a river see if he drowns and if he doesn't then he is guilty and we burn him at the stake instead...........what dya think of that Mr MOJ man ?..........btw i am the Lord Advocate.
This could be the way the Italian justice system is going. They recently arrested some scientists for not predicting an earthquake. I believe that if they are found to weigh more than a duck they are guilty.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:Moray Gub wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:[
Found guilty by a Court or not, at the end of the day, Innocence untill proven guilty is a load of old balls, and i know because i work for MOJ, and in the cases of Ferrari, and just for you Moray, Lance Armstrong, we all know that they are Dirty, Grubby and Guilty. Especially Lance, the cheating, lieing, malicious 'i think im god' nobhead.
Maybe we should just do away with legal systems and fling him in a river see if he drowns and if he doesn't then he is guilty and we burn him at the stake instead...........what dya think of that Mr MOJ man ?..........btw i am the Lord Advocate.
I think thats a pretty good idea, actually.
Of course it is who needs the hassle and expense of a trial...........Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
M..ug get the sand out of yer teeth and see the light
they raced and won in the 90's
(that's their hematocrit level and year)'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
Moray Gub wrote:josame wrote:M..ug get the sand out of yer teeth and see the light
they raced and won in the 90's
(that's their hematocrit level and year)
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Since when did that matter to you...'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
Moray Gub wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Moray Gub wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:[
Found guilty by a Court or not, at the end of the day, Innocence untill proven guilty is a load of old balls, and i know because i work for MOJ, and in the cases of Ferrari, and just for you Moray, Lance Armstrong, we all know that they are Dirty, Grubby and Guilty. Especially Lance, the cheating, lieing, malicious 'i think im god' nobhead.
Maybe we should just do away with legal systems and fling him in a river see if he drowns and if he doesn't then he is guilty and we burn him at the stake instead...........what dya think of that Mr MOJ man ?..........btw i am the Lord Advocate.
I think thats a pretty good idea, actually.
Of course it is who needs the hassle and expense of a trial...........
I think crime should be dealt with on public opinion, so in this case. Guilty:- 99.9% population. Not guilty - Moray Gub.
I think punishment should be decided by the public aswell. Would be dealt much fairer than the current system i tell thee.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:I dont see whats crazy about that, if it is not an offence at the time it was supposed to have been committed then the guilty charge is quite frankly a nonsense and is rightly chucked out and the guilty verdict means absolute diddly squat..In fact to me thats not a technicality thats basic justice.
I meant it was crazy that they actually convicted him in the first place! Shocking as it is, we're actually agreeing.
The original charge, of which he was acquited was for supplying harmful medicines to athletes, which was statute at the time. The secondary charge was the one that wasn't statute and it seemed that the court felt they had to get him on something so sentenced him on this, which he later successfully appealed against.0 -
Moray Gub wrote:Rick Chasey wrote: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.
Of course judicial decisions have never been wrong before have they.
Then why do you put so much emphasis on the legal side of this?0
