Zitat:

Original von Michelin-Männchen Wenn ich durch Bedrohung von Zeugen eine Verjährung herbeiführe, ist die doch auch im europäischen Recht ausgehebelt, oder irre ich da?

In § 78 b und § 78 c StGB ist geregelt, wann die Verjährung ruht oder unterbrochen wird. Bedrohung von Zeugen fällt nicht darunter. Allerdings würde die Bedrohung selbst wiederum eine eigene Straftat darstellen.

Die schriftliche Urteilsbegründung der USADA verzögert sich erneut bis 15. Oktober 2012. Gründe hierfür gibt USADA nicht an.

Ich kann nicht nachvollziehen, auf welcher Grundlage USADA überhaupt Bruyneel sanktioniert, denn augenscheinlich gibt es keine rechtliche bzw. vertragliche Verbindung zwischen Bruyneel und dem amerikanischen Verband. Anders als Armstrong ist Bruyneel wohl kaum Angehöriger von USA Cycling, obwohl dies für eine Sanktion notwendig wäre.

Je mehr ich über die Anschuldigungen von Tygart nachdenke, desto schleierhafter kommt mir alles vor. Vielleicht bin ich am 15. Oktober endlich schlauer.

Danke! Das Gerede von Tygart halte ich für substanzlos und ich glaube, dass er weder in der Frage der Verjährung noch in der Sanktionierung von Bruyneel Recht hat.

Wenn demnächst der syrische Geheimdienst meine Steuerunterlagen prüfen würde, dann könnte er mich bei Unstimmigkeiten auch hierfür sanktionieren, wenn Tygart in dieser Beziehung Recht hätte. Denn das ist dann die Behörde, welche aufgedeckt und untersucht hat.

Zitat:

Original von maki Anti-doping violations where no Sample collection isinvolved 10- 13 Die von der USADA ausgesprochenen lebenslangen Sperren von Ferrari und del Moral wurden von niemandem angezweifelt, gelten als gültig, müssen aber von den intern. Verbänden anerkannt und umgesetzt werden...

Pat McQuaid hatte im Juli kraft seiner unendlichen Kompetenz die Sperren der Betreuer/Ärzte/Hintermänner angezweifelt.

Zitat:

“I’ve read what they’ve said but as they’re not licence holders so I don’t know how they can ban them or what they can be banned for,” he told Cyclingnews.

In dem oben verlinkten Paragraph geht es tatsächlich um "License-Holders".

Wie gesagt, das Zitat stammt aus dem Juli und könnte schon längst überholt sein. Kennt jemand die akutelle Position der UCI zu Ferrari & Co.?




__________________
"Papa, warum wackeln die immer so?"

Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von Heinz Helfgen: 27.09.2012 18:52.

Das halte ich für eine klassische Nebelkerze der UCI.

Tygarts Antwort darauf:

Zitat:

“It is not surprising that UCI would send a press release out attempting to undermine and question the substance of our case,” he said. “It is also troubling that they would claim to have had no contact with us which is inaccurate. “As they know we will be providing them the ‘reasoned decision’ no later than October 15 through the process and at that time the questions contained in their publicly released statement today will be answered.”

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12944/...A-responds.aspx

Bei Velonation und Cyclingnews liest es sich nicht so, dass die USADA zu wenig Beweise hat und jetzt verzweifelt nach dem letzten Strohhalm sucht, sondern eher, dass nach dem ganzen Trubel der letzten Monate Leute gibt, die jetzt erst ausgesagt haben

Genug spekuliert (und den üblichen sarkastischen Kommentar gegen die UCI verkneife ich mir jetzt auch mal), in 2-3 Wochen sind wir hoffentlich schlauer.




__________________
"Papa, warum wackeln die immer so?"

Zitat:

Original von Bartali Ich nehme das mal mit auf meine Liste der Unstimmigkeiten: Verjährung, Sanktionierung von Bruyneel, Beweisaufnahme nach Verfahrensabschluss.

auf Bruyneel wollte ich auch nochmal zurück kommen. Er war viele Jahre lang Eigentümer und Manager eines in den USA lizenzierten Radsportteams, das mutmaßlich organisiertes Doping betrieben hat. Wer sollte denn sonst die Ermittlungen führen, wenn nicht die USADA - und wieso sollte die UCI ihn nicht sanktionieren können?

Bei den italienischen und spanischen Helfern und Helfershelfern sieht es ggf. anders aus, wobei das "keine UCI-Lizenz, also keine Strafe" hier auch ziemlich dubios erscheint, à la "Schade, mein Teamarzt will mich nicht dopen, geh ich halt zu Ferrari, der darf das..."




__________________
"Papa, warum wackeln die immer so?"

Zitat:

Original von Michelin-Männchen Laut sz wird die Akte diese Woche an die UCI geschickt. Kristin Armstrong war wohl auch beteiligt...

Zu dem Thema stand gestern auch was bei cn, wenn ich nicht irre.




__________________
La passione non ha eta. - D.R.

Zitat:

Original von raser Zitat: Original von Michelin-Männchen Laut sz wird die Akte diese Woche an die UCI geschickt. Kristin Armstrong war wohl auch beteiligt... Zu dem Thema stand gestern auch was bei cn, wenn ich nicht irre.

Da sollte man vielleicht hinzufügen, dass es sich bei Kristin Armstrong nicht um die Zeitfahrolympiasiegerin handelt, sondern um die Ex-Frau von LA.




__________________
Go funk yourself

der Walsh-Artikel wurde auf der Seite des Paul-Kimmage-Defense-Funds gepostet:

THE REPORT from the United States Anti-Doping Agency explaining why it stripped Lance Armstrong of seven Tour de France titles and imposed a life ban is expected to be sent to the world governing body of cycling, the Union Cycliste International, this week.

UCI will find the report is uncomfortable reading — it details the doping conspiracy that underpinned the success of the world’s top cycling team, US Postal Service and its leader Armstrong, from 1999 to 2004.

Two riders are believed to have given affidavits that Armstrong told them he had a positive test swept under the carpet at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland and another has sworn that Armstrong told him he could use his influence with UCI to circumvent cycling’s anti-doping laws.

UCI is suing the former Sunday Times journalist Paul Kimmage for suggesting Armstrong was protected, an action that has outraged cycling fans and prompted them to contribute more than £26,000 to help defray the journalist’s legal expenses. Now, according to three former teammates, Armstrong himself claimed he got special treatment from UCI. Given its eagerness to go to the courts to protect its reputation, UCI may want to sue Armstrong after it has read USADA’s report.

But its overriding reaction to the report is likely to be dismay that doping should have been so integral to US Postal’s modus operandi and wonder that it remained undiscovered for so long. UCI will also realise it missed many opportunities to investigate what was going on within the team and that this failure meant the team could go on doping for as long as they wished.

For example, in 2003 the former US Postal soigneur Emma O’Reilly told The Sunday Times she remembered many incidents that convinced her Armstrong and the team were doping. In particular she recalled an evening on the 1999 Tour when giving Armstrong his evening massage. She overheard him and two team officials concoct a story that, with the aid of a backdated medical certificate, let the rider escape punishment.

O’Reilly claimed at the time that she’d been told Armstrong had taken cortisone during a race the previous month and that it had stayed in his system, causing him to test positive in the first week of that Tour. Support for O’Reilly comes now in an affidavit from the rider who says it was known in the team that Armstrong used Kenacourt, a trade name for a long-acting synthetic corticosteroid.

At the time of her revelations, UCI did not feel any need to interview O’Reilly and see if her many examples of US Postal’s cheating could be verified. Now UCI is having verification thrust upon it.

In another rider’s affidavit there is a story of Armstrong’s concern at scar tissue on his arm caused by injections of EPO as he was about to go for his medical test before the 1999 Tour. According to this rider, he asked O’Reilly for make-up so the scar could be concealed and that she had applied the make-up to Armstrong’s arm. This story was told in precisely the same detail by O’Reilly years earlier.

What will alarm UCI is the detail contained in multiple recollections of Armstrong’s teammates. One rider tells a story from the 1998 world championship at Valkenburg in Holland when cortisone pills, wrapped in tin foil, were given to the Postal riders on the US national team for the road race. According to the rider’s affidavit, the pills were wrapped in the foil and handed out by Kristin Armstrong, the champion’s former wife. “Kristin is rolling the joints,” one rider joked at the time.

Another rider recalls a telephone call from George Hincapie, a teammate of Armstrong’s in all seven Tour wins, saying he had been stopped by US Customs while returning from Europe and that EPO had been found in his luggage. He lied that it was prescribed medication and they accepted this story.

Adding to the sense of authenticity is the consistency that runs through the reports; incidents recounted by one rider that involve others are backed up in the accounts of those involved. There is also an overriding sense of Armstrong’s central role in the conspiracy to use illegal drugs. He and his former wife used to refer to EPO by the codename “butter,” says another rider’s affidavit, because the drug was in the butter in the fridge.

There is an account of how unhappy he was with team doctor Pedro Celaya through much of 1999. According to one rider’s affidavit, Armstrong believed Celaya wasn’t giving the riders enough performance enhancing drugs. “We might as well be riding clean,” he is quoted as saying at the time. Celaya was replaced at the end of the year by another Spanish doctor, Luis del Moral.

Some of the evidence against Armstrong and the team is provided by teammates who have already come forward such as Floyd Landis, Tyler Hamilton and Frankie Andreu but there is also incriminating detail from riders who haven’t spoken in public. Riders such as Hincapie, Christian Vandevelde and Levi Leipheimer are all believed to have testified honestly and confirmed stories that Armstrong and his team participated in a sophisticated doping conspiracy.

In an interview with L’Equipe in France, the head of USADA, Travis Tygart, said he believed all the witnesses his agency interviewed had told the truth and that there had been “confirmation” of this. Tygart might have been referring to the presence of US Justice Department official Mike Pugliese at USADA’s interviews with witnesses.

During the interviews, Pugliese sat silently but with transcripts of interviews these witnesses had given before a Grand Jury or to federal officers in the case against the team that was dropped in February. “As you gave an answer to a question,” one witness said, “you were very conscious of this guy checking it against the answer you had given to the Feds, so you really wanted to make sure you got it right.”

USADA did not receive any material from the aborted federal case and Pugliese sat in on the interviews solely to check if witnesses confirmed accounts given to federal officers and to see if the Justice Department should open a civil case against Armstrong and the owners of the team.

David Walsh (Sunday Times) twittert

Zitat:

USADA report on Armstrong and US Postal doping will be with UCI today (Wed). Verbruggen and McQuaid can hardly wait to read it.

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST/status/255914712133431296

Zitat:

Many wish to know if report will be made public. In time, yes. In the meantime, USADA may release a summary this week. UCI need to fess up.

https://twitter.com/DavidWalshST/status/255963199394955264




__________________
"Papa, warum wackeln die immer so?"