Bruyneel arbitration etc

2

Comments

  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    dish_dash wrote:
    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...


    Speaking about doping , is not confessing to doping.

    Confessing to doping under oath because you have no choice is not confessing to doping out of freewill.


    That would only confirm my original opinion of Vaughter's


    I shall look forward to reading the book.
  • rich_pcp
    rich_pcp Posts: 113
    I wonder if someone will start a thread about JV which will get hijacked into a discussion about Bruyneel?
  • dish_dash
    dish_dash Posts: 5,647
    While this point might not be true of Big George, Garmin 3 etc. I don't think that Vaughters was forced to confess under oath. By 2010 he had already been speaking to USADA about doping and had already publicly indicated that he had doped. The Armstrong case was constructed on the back of Landis, Vaughters and others speaking to USADA.

    Contrast with Bruyneel.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    dish_dash wrote:
    While this point might not be true of Big George, Garmin 3 etc. I don't think that Vaughters was forced to confess under oath. By 2010 he had already been speaking to USADA about doping and had already publicly indicated that he had doped. The Armstrong case was constructed on the back of Landis, Vaughters and others speaking to USADA.

    Contrast with Bruyneel.


    Tis right. Vaughters wasnt forced. None of the Garmin guys were (nor Barry and others). They all volunteered their testimonies. Hamilton, Hincapie, Leipheimer (?) - different story thanks to the FDA's powers.

    OTOH Tygart and USADA have no power to force confessions - which is why the likes of Livingston have been able to wriggle out of all this.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Vaughters spoke to both Walsh and USADA in 2004. He wasn't comfortable enough to say to USADA "I doped on xyz" because Armstrong still wielded significant power in the sport. But he provided a lot of detail that would have left no doubt in Tygarts mind that that he'd doped.

    As for the people with history who went to JV's team - They told the team about their past. They cooperated when asked to, even though it was risky for them and their team stood behind them. Floyd Landis pulled the pin, but he had Tigers Williams standing behind him to a degree. Both JV and Williams have enabled the truth to eventually come out and moved things forward a bit.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,431
    iainf72 wrote:
    Tigers Williams standing behind him to a degree. Both JV and Williams have enabled the truth to eventually come out and moved things forward a bit.

    Who? Never heard that name before

    An NHL player?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    dish_dash wrote:
    While this point might not be true of Big George, Garmin 3 etc. I don't think that Vaughters was forced to confess under oath. By 2010 he had already been speaking to USADA about doping and had already publicly indicated that he had doped. The Armstrong case was constructed on the back of Landis, Vaughters and others speaking to USADA.

    Contrast with Bruyneel.


    Tis right. Vaughters wasnt forced. None of the Garmin guys were (nor Barry and others). They all volunteered their testimonies. Hamilton, Hincapie, Leipheimer (?) - different story thanks to the FDA's powers.

    OTOH Tygart and USADA have no power to force confessions - which is why the likes of Livingston have been able to wriggle out of all this.

    Wrong ,,,all their testimonies were done under oath.
    A deal was done, Tygart would get more evidence against Armstrong and they got reduced sentences i.e. off season bans and exclusion from the Olympics.

    "In their investigation, which found Armstrong guilty of several doping related charges, 11 former teammates testified under oath. Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles as a result of the investigation, and chose not fight the charged leveled at him. Six active riders have been suspended for six months.

    Frankie Andreu, Michael Barry, Tom Danielson, Tyler Hamilton, George Hincapie, Floyd Landis, Levi Leipheimer, Stephen Swart, Christian Vande Velde, Jonathan Vaughters and David Zabriskie"

    get your facts in order,,, UNDER OATH .
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,431
    rayjay wrote:
    UNDER OATH .

    =/= forced
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    No choice ....Do a deal or get longer sentences
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,646
    rayjay wrote:
    No choice ....Do a deal or get longer sentences

    Horner isn't on that list, didn't do a deal, and won the Vuelta last season.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,695
    Do you seriously not see the difference between "I have something to tell you" and "You have no other option but to come to this court room (or similar) and swear to tell the truth under penalty of jail time"

    Riders that rode for Garmin took the first option, other's (eg Hincapie) waited until the latter was the only option

    There is no grey area here rayjay, you re

    flat

    out

    wrong!
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,646
    ddraver wrote:
    Do you seriously not see the difference between "I have something to tell you" and "You have no other option but to come to this court room (or similar) and swear to tell the truth under penalty of jail time"

    Riders that rode for Garmin took the first option, other's (eg Hincapie) waited until the latter was the only option

    There is no grey area here rayjay, you re

    flat

    out

    wrong!

    Yep.

    Tygart had no power to force riders to testify, and without the Garmin riders he had only Landis and Hamilton. The other non-Garmin riders were a lot later to the party. If they'd kept the omerta the case would have been a lot less solid, and unlikely to see them cop any ban at all, but they didn't.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,431
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Tigers Williams standing behind him to a degree. Both JV and Williams have enabled the truth to eventually come out and moved things forward a bit.

    Who? Never heard that name before

    An NHL player?

    Found it

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0820993006
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    ddraver wrote:
    Do you seriously not see the difference between "I have something to tell you" and "You have no other option but to come to this court room (or similar) and swear to tell the truth under penalty of jail time"

    Riders that rode for Garmin took the first option, other's (eg Hincapie) waited until the latter was the only option

    There is no grey area here rayjay, you re

    flat

    out

    wrong!


    where is the I have something to tell you?

    All those names I mentioned, had no choice but to do a deal or get a longer ban.
    it's funny how their confessions tie in with the Tygarts Armstrong witch-hunt.

    All of those rider could have confessed years ago well before Tygart came into the picture.

    Vaughter's confessed anonymously to the New York times back in 2006 ....why did he not just come out and confess?

    Why did he not confess when he started slipstream in 2003?

    I don't buy it.

    Lets move on.
  • above_the_cows
    above_the_cows Posts: 11,406
    I was wondering what Tiger Woods had to do with it all myself. I was thinking golly he wasn't involved in another scandal as well!

    Anyway I have Cycle of Lies on order and am looking forward to reading.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    TailWindHome wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Tigers Williams standing behind him to a degree. Both JV and Williams have enabled the truth to eventually come out and moved things forward a bit.

    Who? Never heard that name before

    An NHL player?

    Found it

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0820993006



    Oh you're goooooood.....
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    One thing I didn't know before reading Cycle of Lies, is that the early confessors were going to get no bans at all. It was only when Hincapie dug his heels in and tried to tough it out that the 6 month thing happened.

    All this "why didn't they do it sooner" blah blah. Well, they didn't. You may as well say why did they dope, or why did they ever fling their leg over a bike. It's what happened - Eventually they did the right thing. They didn't have to do it.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    Be interesting to see what Bruyneel has to say about any UCI compliance and how McQuaid And Verbruggen come out of it.
    He will be testifying under oath so it should be good.

    I suspect his choice of taking the matter further means he must have something that puts him or possibly Armstrong in a better light.
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,431
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Oh you're goooooood.....

    That's sarcasm isn't it?
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,886
    iainf72 wrote:
    One thing I didn't know before reading Cycle of Lies, is that the early confessors were going to get no bans at all. It was only when Hincapie dug his heels in and tried to tough it out that the 6 month thing happened.

    I still disagree with the six month off-season ban. It's hard to deny they got off very lightly which gives Armstrong something to moan about. It would have been ridiculous if they didn't get any sort of ban.

    It has no relevance here, but I want to like Vaughters; however, there's always bits and pieces that he does that make him less likeable in my eyes. Landis may be messed up now and have spent a long time lying and cheating, but I admire his current approach to honesty - when he says something now I believe him.
  • rayjay
    rayjay Posts: 1,384
    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.


    Just read the appropriate bit,,,,Vaughter's never owned up to doping in 2004 as you implied.

    I was willing to change my opinion but facts help.

    Talking about doping and confessing are not the same thing.

    Vaughters owned up many years later and inline with Tygart's case to get Armstrong which means he coughed up to save his own a%% as I suspected.

    He should have revealed who he was when he confessed to the New York Time's back in 2006 .

    Then he would be more credible.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,547
    iainf72 wrote:
    It seems we hear about it this week.

    I'd sack your sources, Iain. Two weeks later and still nothing.
  • andy_wrx
    andy_wrx Posts: 3,396
    TailWindHome wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Tigers Williams standing behind him to a degree. Both JV and Williams have enabled the truth to eventually come out and moved things forward a bit.

    Who? Never heard that name before

    An NHL player?

    Found it

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0820993006
    I love the Mr Armstrong, Mr Landis stuff

    Mr Weasel however...tw@t !
  • curium
    curium Posts: 815
    Vaughters talks about how riders are doping but doesn't confess to his own doping in a 2004 meeting with USADA but it is implied through his intimate knowledge of the practice. I wouldn't call it a confession though.
  • dennisn
    dennisn Posts: 10,601
    Got ya. :lol::lol:

    I'll bet all you guys were thinking "Oh no, not him again"?

    Don't worry I'll steer clear of this one. Although it has the potential to go on for quite a while and provide some interesting reading.
  • Mad_Malx
    Mad_Malx Posts: 5,182
    TailWindHome wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Tigers Williams standing behind him to a degree. Both JV and Williams have enabled the truth to eventually come out and moved things forward a bit.

    Who? Never heard that name before

    An NHL player?

    Found it

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0820993006

    Hang on Tailwind - you're implicated too!
  • sherer
    sherer Posts: 2,460
    so is there any actual news on this ? I believe the hearings have already happened but so far silence on the actual outcome for JB
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    sherer wrote:
    so is there any actual news on this ? I believe the hearings have already happened but so far silence on the actual outcome for JB


    Nada, zilch
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,695
    There must be something going on behind the scenes here (unless it really was all about Larry), I wonder if the CIRC (or an equivalent) is involved at all..?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Crankbrother
    Crankbrother Posts: 1,695
    My guess is Bruyneel's defence must include how complicit others within the sport were in doping during the years in question ... Maybe not just the UCI but riders that came from other teams and the 'regimes' they had at those teams ... I've mentioned before, although cited as 'the most sophisticated doping programme ...' it was blood bags taped to walls and stuff in the salad crisper ... So god knows what the others were up to ...

    (None of this absolves Bruyneel, btw, he got nabbed (eventually) so he has to live with the consequences ...)

Categories