Bruyneel/Shack

Talk about competitive road cycling in all its forms
User avatar
Lichtblick
Posts: 1365
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 19:35 pm

Bruyneel/Shack

Postby Lichtblick » Sat Oct 13, 2012 19:14 pm

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.

User avatar
TheBigBean
Posts: 3084
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 14:42 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby TheBigBean » Sat Oct 13, 2012 19:22 pm

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.

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15978
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby RichN95 » Sat Oct 13, 2012 20:34 pm

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: @RichN95

Garry H
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 20:45 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby Garry H » Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:09 pm

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)

User avatar
Rick Chasey
Lives Here
Posts: 28557
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 15:34 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby Rick Chasey » Sun Oct 14, 2012 13:34 pm

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.

User avatar
Milton50
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:42 am

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby Milton50 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 15:00 pm

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?

User avatar
Rick Chasey
Lives Here
Posts: 28557
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 15:34 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby Rick Chasey » Sun Oct 14, 2012 15:01 pm

Unfortunately I've yet to bump into Bruyneel in my trials and tribulations around SW London.

User avatar
RichN95
Posts: 15978
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 00:36 am

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby RichN95 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 15:45 pm

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?

Ask Roman Polanski how it works.

(I doubt anyone will be going to prison)
Twitter: @RichN95

nathancom
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 19:13 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby nathancom » Sun Oct 14, 2012 15:52 pm

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?

Ask Roman Polanski how it works.

(I doubt anyone will be going to prison)

I don't see why they wouldn't prosecute LA for perjury.

User avatar
afx237vi
Posts: 12263
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 22:32 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby afx237vi » Sun Oct 14, 2012 15:53 pm

He could always ask the Ecuadorian embassy if they have room for one more.

nathancom
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 19:13 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby nathancom » Sun Oct 14, 2012 15:54 pm

afx237vi wrote:He could always ask the Ecuadorian embassy if they have room for one more.

Could probably score some great drugs in South America too.

User avatar
Milton50
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:42 am

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby Milton50 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 16:08 pm

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?

Ask Roman Polanski how it works.

(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.

User avatar
TheBigBean
Posts: 3084
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 14:42 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby TheBigBean » Sun Oct 14, 2012 17:26 pm

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.

User avatar
Milton50
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:42 am

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby Milton50 » Sun Oct 14, 2012 17:37 pm

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.

User avatar
Le Commentateur
Posts: 4110
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 17:08 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby Le Commentateur » Sun Oct 14, 2012 17:38 pm

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.

Yes but his London private wealth investor friends will have been busy with his money up til now.

User avatar
TheBigBean
Posts: 3084
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 14:42 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby TheBigBean » Sun Oct 14, 2012 17:49 pm

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 states

On 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.

nathancom
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 19:13 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby nathancom » Sun Oct 14, 2012 18:30 pm

Fair enough, a shame though because it is a relatively serious example of perjury. Can he be tried for defrauding SCA?

User avatar
TheBigBean
Posts: 3084
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 14:42 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby TheBigBean » Sun Oct 14, 2012 19:08 pm

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.

User avatar
Rick Chasey
Lives Here
Posts: 28557
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 15:34 pm

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby Rick Chasey » Sun Oct 14, 2012 21:04 pm

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.

Yes but his London private wealth investor friends will have been busy with his money up til now.


Busy doesn't mean making money, especially in these markets ;).

User avatar
knedlicky
Posts: 2571
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 08:43 am

Re: Bruyneel/Shack

Postby knedlicky » Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:46 am

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.

Saiz hasn’t yet been banned. Of course, he might well in January, when the Puerto trial comes about.

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.


Return to “Pro Race”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: alanp23, blueturtle, bobbydazzla, starockets, type:epyt and 14 guests