Bruyneel/Shack
Lichtblick
Posts: 1,434
Some stuff here (2 days ago) which looks interesting: (apologies if someone else already posted this)
http://inrng.com/2012/10/bruyneel-radioshack/
What on earth would be the point of Bruyneel contesting the USADA? Is he? Someone will know.
http://inrng.com/2012/10/bruyneel-radioshack/
What on earth would be the point of Bruyneel contesting the USADA? Is he? Someone will know.
0
Comments
-
Yes he is contesting the charges. Two reasons:
(i) he was until yesterday earning €150k per month, so each month of delay was worth quite a lot
(ii) he has an outside chance of reducing the ban to a two year suspension.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Yes he is contesting the charges. Two reasons:
(i) he was until yesterday earning €150k per month, so each month of delay was worth quite a lot
(ii) he has an outside chance of reducing the ban to a two year suspension.
It's mostly reason (i) though - lives in Chelsea, kids at Public school. He'll be as unemployable as Manolo Saiz if his ban ever expires.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Yes he is contesting the charges. Two reasons:
(i) he was until yesterday earning €150k per month, so each month of delay was worth quite a lot
(ii) he has an outside chance of reducing the ban to a two year suspension.
It's mostly reason (i) though - lives in Chelsea, kids at Public school. He'll be as unemployable as Manolo Saiz if his ban ever expires.
nah, Savio will give him a job ;0)0 -
RichN95 wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Yes he is contesting the charges. Two reasons:
(i) he was until yesterday earning €150k per month, so each month of delay was worth quite a lot
(ii) he has an outside chance of reducing the ban to a two year suspension.
It's mostly reason (i) though - lives in Chelsea, kids at Public school. He'll be as unemployable as Manolo Saiz if his ban ever expires.
Pays for about half a month of rent in Chelsea.0 -
What? Really? I didn't know Bruyneel lived in England. Actually that raises another point. I really don't have any idea about the law or jurisdiction. I take it that the people who are/might get a prison sentence will have to serve it in America?0
-
-
Milton50 wrote:What? Really? I didn't know Bruyneel lived in England. Actually that raises another point. I really don't have any idea about the law or jurisdiction. I take it that the people who are/might get a prison sentence will have to serve it in America?
(I doubt anyone will be going to prison)Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:Milton50 wrote:What? Really? I didn't know Bruyneel lived in England. Actually that raises another point. I really don't have any idea about the law or jurisdiction. I take it that the people who are/might get a prison sentence will have to serve it in America?
(I doubt anyone will be going to prison)0 -
He could always ask the Ecuadorian embassy if they have room for one more.0
-
RichN95 wrote:Milton50 wrote:What? Really? I didn't know Bruyneel lived in England. Actually that raises another point. I really don't have any idea about the law or jurisdiction. I take it that the people who are/might get a prison sentence will have to serve it in America?
(I doubt anyone will be going to prison)
Well, Armstrong lied under oath to get a ~£5m payout. So I wouldn't be surprised to see him on trial for perjury.0 -
I believe the statute of limitations for perjury at both state and federal level is three years, so Armstrong will not have to answer to that. I'm suprised that this is not reported more - even Inner Ring seemed to imply a prosecution was possible.0
-
It wouldn't just be inrng who has misunderstood if you are right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705
The BBC imply that he could be trialled for perjury. They also quote USADA as claiming that LA is "subject to the penalties of perjury."
So I'm not sure what's going on.0 -
RichN95 wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Yes he is contesting the charges. Two reasons:
(i) he was until yesterday earning €150k per month, so each month of delay was worth quite a lot
(ii) he has an outside chance of reducing the ban to a two year suspension.
It's mostly reason (i) though - lives in Chelsea, kids at Public school. He'll be as unemployable as Manolo Saiz if his ban ever expires.0 -
Milton50 wrote:It wouldn't just be inrng who has misunderstood if you are right.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19921705
The BBC imply that he could be trialled for perjury. They also quote USADA as claiming that LA is "subject to the penalties of perjury."
So I'm not sure what's going on.
The reasoned descision statesOn November 30, 2005, three months after Mr. Stapleton testified in his deposition in the
SCA arbitration proceeding, Lance Armstrong testified under oath and subject to the penalties of
perjury in his deposition and was asked the following questions, and gave the following answers
This is true i.e. when he testified it was subject to the penalties of perjury. Now sufficient time has past, so there is no penalty.0 -
Fair enough, a shame though because it is a relatively serious example of perjury. Can he be tried for defrauding SCA?0
-
Sadly, I don't think so.
He may well be called as a witness in the Bruyneel case which would be under oath, but his lawyers will advise him what to say, so he is unlikely to perjure himself. I expect a lot of "can't quite recall" and 5th amendment stlye non-answers. Althought I think the 5th is supposed to protect you from self-incrimmination rather than reputationally damaging statements, so it might be an interesting testimonial.0 -
Le Commentateur wrote:RichN95 wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Yes he is contesting the charges. Two reasons:
(i) he was until yesterday earning €150k per month, so each month of delay was worth quite a lot
(ii) he has an outside chance of reducing the ban to a two year suspension.
It's mostly reason (i) though - lives in Chelsea, kids at Public school. He'll be as unemployable as Manolo Saiz if his ban ever expires.
Busy doesn't mean making money, especially in these markets .0 -
RichN95 wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Yes he is contesting the charges. Two reasons:
(i) he was until yesterday earning €150k per month, so each month of delay was worth quite a lot
(ii) he has an outside chance of reducing the ban to a two year suspension.
He'll be as unemployable as Manolo Saiz if his ban ever expires.
When Fuentes was arrested, and Liberty Seguros withdrew as sponsor of Saiz’s team, and Vino arranged that Astana could become the new sponsor, Saiz stepped down as DS so there wouldn’t be any problems in getting the ProTour licence.
He’s said he’d like to return to cycling management, but he doesn’t think it’ll ever come about. I suppose he too realises that, ban or not, sponsors would be reluctant to back any new Saiz team.
He nowadays runs a restaurant at Torrelavega, near Santander in Spain (Torrelevega is also Freire’s hometown).
Saiz might be pleased with recent developments; he highly disliked LA, once saying he had no respect for him as a person and that if he met LA on the street he’d never shake his hand. And also it makes things a bit closer to ‘all square’ on the doping front.0 -
knedlicky wrote:RichN95 wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Yes he is contesting the charges. Two reasons:
(i) he was until yesterday earning €150k per month, so each month of delay was worth quite a lot
(ii) he has an outside chance of reducing the ban to a two year suspension.
He'll be as unemployable as Manolo Saiz if his ban ever expires.
When Fuentes was arrested, and Liberty Seguros withdrew as sponsor of Saiz’s team, and Vino arranged that Astana could become the new sponsor, Saiz stepped down as DS so there wouldn’t be any problems in getting the ProTour licence.
He’s said he’d like to return to cycling management, but he doesn’t think it’ll ever come about. I suppose he too realises that, ban or not, sponsors would be reluctant to back any new Saiz team.Twitter: @RichN950