Bruyneel arbitration etc

iainf72

It seems we hear about it this week.

JB has been doing some interviews too ahead of it.

Also, he's had that <fill in your own expression> Vayer around to discuss things.

No_Ta_Doctor

I tried to fill in my own expression but none would pass the filters.

What's the betting on some sort of reconciliation and unholy alliance between the Hog and Vayer? :-(

ddraver

He's being a bit more aggressive on Twitter at the mo, giving Race Radio a bit of a kicking (or trying to). Feels like something big should be coming, although I suspect that it won't be the truth...

andyp

I still can't believe he contested it after Armstrong's admission.

He'll get the long ban he deserves. Good riddance.

thomthom

He won't get into the sport again - ban or not.

What bothers me is that the man is multi-millionaire.

TheBigBean

andyp wrote:

I still can't believe he contested it after Armstrong's admission.

If you're facing a life sentence there is only an upside. If I were him I would definitely contest it.

rayjay

ThomThom wrote:

He won't get into the sport again - ban or not.

What bothers me is that the man is multi-millionaire.

There are plenty more people who have cashed in on and supported athletes found to be doping.

Bruyneel is no worse or better.

What about all the cash the UCI would have raked in. The sponsors and I don't just mean Postals.

Armstrong took the sport to a new commercial level. The capitalist machine went into overdrive and lined their pockets.

I have no issue with Bruyneel. He was part of a 7 times tour winning champion at a time when we know other teams doped as well and did it a lot more professionally than Postal.

If Riis and Vaughters are still running teams then I don't see no reason why Bruyneel should not be allowed to run a team.
How come the statute does not apply to him.

Hypocritical pooh pooh IMO.

Bruyneel was doing is job, like it or not and it worked.

I am more interested to see if anything new comes out.

iainf72

rayjay wrote:

If Riis and Vaughters are still running teams then I don't see no reason why Bruyneel should not be allowed to run a team.
How come the statute does not apply to him.

Riis and JV admitted to doping as riders.

JB has been done for running a doping programme at a pro cycling team

They're different things entirely.

rayjay

iainf72 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

If Riis and Vaughters are still running teams then I don't see no reason why Bruyneel should not be allowed to run a team.
How come the statute does not apply to him.

Riis and JV admitted to doping as riders.

JB has been done for running a doping programme at a pro cycling team

They're different things entirely.

Well that's Ok then .

Long as they just doped themselves.

No issue there then. :roll:

Seriously , Iainf72 are you that short sighted?


For instance in this case the fact that 2 ex riders who doped, who both run teams who do not have the cleanest of records when it comes to doped riders and you just dismiss it.

I knew you was going to reply to my post and I knew exactly how you were going to reply.

I want to have a conversation about these matter's and you just seem intent on shooting me down all the time.

iainf72

I'm not talking right or wrong

I'm saying there are 2 different things at play.

I'm not shooting you down, I'm pointing out the difference. If Bruyneel admitted doping, the statute of limitations would apply to him for his doping, just like JV and BR.

Le Commentateur

He's probably a good example of what someone is capable of if they don't have any moral scruples or structures in place to stop them. And of course, as Rayjay points out, he's not/was not operating in isolation.

rayjay

iainf72 wrote:

I'm not talking right or wrong

I'm saying there are 2 different things at play.

I'm not shooting you down, I'm pointing out the difference. If Bruyneel admitted doping, the statute of limitations would apply to him for his doping, just like JV and BR.

Fair point iainf72 , I apologise for being a bit quick off the mark.

thomthom

rayjay wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

He won't get into the sport again - ban or not.

What bothers me is that the man is multi-millionaire.

If Riis and Vaughters are still running teams then I don't see no reason why Bruyneel should not be allowed to run a team.
How come the statute does not apply to him.

I can tell you it bothers me almost as much that Riis is multi-millionaire. But 'only' almost since Riis isn't a c*** and he has stepped down significantly from his positions.

Vaughters isn't by any kind a multi-millionaire and he's been doing what Johan would never do. Come clean and actually trying to make the sport more credible. He has taken quite a few knocks over the knee for that (deservedly) and will continue to do so but at least he's trying.

However, the thread was about Johan, not Bjarne, Vaughters, Rihs or whoever it might be, so that's why I singled him out.

rayjay

ThomThom wrote:

rayjay wrote:

ThomThom wrote:

He won't get into the sport again - ban or not.

What bothers me is that the man is multi-millionaire.

If Riis and Vaughters are still running teams then I don't see no reason why Bruyneel should not be allowed to run a team.
How come the statute does not apply to him.

I can tell you it bothers me almost as much that Riis is multi-millionaire. But 'only' almost since Riis isn't a c*** and he has stepped down significantly from his positions.

Vaughters isn't by any kind a multi-millionaire and he's been doing what Johan would never do. Come clean and actually trying to make the sport more credible. He has taken quite a few knocks over the knee for that (deservedly) and will continue to do so but at least he's trying.

However, the thread was about Johan, not Bjarne, Vaughters, Rihs or whoever it might be, so that's why I singled him out.

Vaughter's never came clean, he got found out in the Armstrong case and had to testify under oath just like a lot his rider's...There was no coming out clean. These eleven ex postal riders , Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie all done a deal with tygart

Vaughters started Slipstream in 2003,,,how many years later before they came clean,,2012

I don't see that as a come clean policy team when they wait 9 years and are forced to talk.

Why did he not say anything about his past doping when he started Slipstream?


Old ground lets get back on topic.

andyp

You really show your ignorance with posts like that.

iainf72

rayjay wrote:

Vaughter's never came clean, he got found out in the Armstrong case and had to testify under oath just like a lot his rider's...There was no coming out clean.

Not picking on you, but you're wrong. He'd spoken to the authorities before starting Slipstream.

I urge you to read Cycle of Lies.

dish_dash

iainf72 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Vaughter's never came clean, he got found out in the Armstrong case and had to testify under oath just like a lot his rider's...There was no coming out clean.

Not picking on you, but you're wrong. He'd spoken to the authorities before starting Slipstream.

I urge you to read Cycle of Lies.

I was about to say the same thing as I was reading it this morning. Vaughters went to USADA voluntarily in 2004.

Rayjay - do read the book.

rayjay

I have it , not had the time to read it , Skipped through a few bits.

That is news to me has far as I knew he was part of Tygarts/ Armstrong investigation like the riders I named above.

If that is the case then he has not been very clear about it and IMO the other riders at Garmin should have owned up as well. It does Garmin and cycling no favours when riders from Garmin keep getting busted.




I know he has made hints , strong ones before i.e. his second place at the Dauphine and his Ventoux tt win there.

I'm always happy to admit I'm wrong when I am....

Cheers for the info and I will try and find some time to read it and get back to ya.

thomthom

Who hacked rayjay's account?

rayjay

Hamg on a minute ,,,,,Didn't Vaughters confess anonymously to a the The new York times [ I think] back in 2008/9 ....

You lot sure it was a proper full out confession 2004?

I'm borrowed the book to my Friend ,,,,have to get it back now

dish_dash

You've got the book, or at least have access to it. Can I suggest less posting, more reading...

rayjay

dish_dash wrote:

You've got the book, or at least have access to it. Can I suggest less posting, more reading...

How about you responding in a more civil way.

andyp

How about you practice what you preach?

rayjay

Former Armstrong teammates Floyd Landis and Jonathan Vaughters were among the panelists. Vaughters spoke about how Landis’s 2010 decision to confess to doping and cooperate with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency led Vaughters to do the same – within days
i.e. Not 2004.


Also Like I said Vaughters confessed anonymously to the The New York times[ actually I think it was a bit earlier than I Posted] 2006.

I don't have the book on hand so could you explain how he could confessed to USADA in 2004 and what happened ?

Does not make sense?

thomthom

ThomThom wrote:

Who hacked rayjay's account?

rayjay's got control of his account Again.

Macaloon

I would be ashamed of myself for repeatedly smearing the reputation of a prominent anti-doping advocate. But that's just me.

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

I would be ashamed of myself for repeatedly smearing the reputation of a prominent anti-doping advocate. But that's just me.

That's no way to talk about rayjaysus :shock:

rayjay

Can anyone just answer the question?

That's all.

I am not trying to prove anyone wrong.

I do not have the book on hand and I am curious to know about Vaughters 2004 confession to USADA as mentioned on the previous page. It does not make sense and tie in with known facts like the examples I posted.

Thanks

dish_dash

rayjay wrote:

Former Armstrong teammates Floyd Landis and Jonathan Vaughters were among the panelists. Vaughters spoke about how Landis’s 2010 decision to confess to doping and cooperate with the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency led Vaughters to do the same – within days
i.e. Not 2004.


Also Like I said Vaughters confessed anonymously to the The New York times[ actually I think it was a bit earlier than I Posted] 2006.

I don't have the book on hand so could you explain how he could confessed to USADA in 2004 and what happened ?

Does not make sense?

It would really help the discussion if you read the book in its entirety. I'm not doing your homework, and I'm only halfway through the book myself so write under correction.

According to Cycle of Lies Vaughters first sat down with USADA in 2004 to speak about doping in cycling.

Note that 2004 was the year that Armstrong was busy imposing the omerta, Simeoni being one example. It was not an easy atmosphere for anyone to start talking about doping in the sport, let alone by American cyclists.

Regardless of timings, at least Vaughters has admitted to doping and has taken active steps to promote a less doped sport. Same cannot be said of Bruyneel, hence his arbitration hearing...

Macaloon

Richmond Racer wrote:

That's no way to talk about rayjaysus :shock:

I can't abide throwing people casually under the bus in pursuit of a "they're all at it, even squeaky clean Garmin LOL. No way you can win clean..." agenda. Walsh has had similar treatment. It's pathetic.

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

That's no way to talk about rayjaysus :shock:

I can't abide throwing people casually under the bus in pursuit of a "they're all at it, even squeaky clean Garmin LOL. No way you can win clean..." agenda. Walsh has had similar treatment. It's pathetic.

Ohhh....I thought you were talking about our very own anti-doping advocate


Nah, you're right.