Het dopingtopic 2.0

[simen]

Zomaar wat bijverschijnselen.
http://www.bike-eu.com/Laws-Regulations ... -1091042W/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[timo2.0]

Dus als ik onder ede verklaar dat ik jou bij een vreemd heerschap heb gezien, maakt mijn verklaring geloofwaardiger dan iemand die bij jou was?

Wel als meerdere getuigen onafhankelijk van elkaar getuigen dat zij jou daar hebben gezien. En laat dat nu precies zijn wat hier aan de hand is. Je hebt weinig kaas gegeten van begrippen als direct en indirect bewijs, hè?

[daniel1975]

Mike is stiekum half Spaans denk ik; daar regent het ineens steunbetuigingen voor LA :S

[timo2.0]

Haha, ja, een hele reeks Spaanse renners benadrukt vlak voor de start van het proces tegen Fuentes nog even dat een renner onschuldig is als er geen positieve test is. Hoe toeevallig

[timo2.0]

Interessant, een oud-US Postal renner die niet in het USADA-onderzoek is gehoord, derhalve geen onderdeel uitmaakt van een mogelijke deal over strafvermindering, maar die nu ook bekent...

Retired Norwegian rider Steffen Kjærgaard, who rode for US Postal from 2000 to 2003, has confessed to using EPO, starting in 1998. He had no knowledge of any other rider using doping products, he said at a press conference on Tuesday. “For nearly 15 years I have kept a lie. What has emerged in recent weeks from the USADA revelations has forced to pull out my dark lies of the past,” Kjærgaard said, according to ProCycling.no. He turned pro with TVM-Farm Frites in 1996, and joined Team Chicky World in 1998, before moving to US Postal. He rode the Tour de France in support of Lance Armstrong in 2000 and 2001.

He started doping in 1998, buying EPO on his own initiative, but relied on the help and guidance of Belgian doctor Georges Mouton. “I wanted help with my health and to avoid being caught. Good results paved the way for an offer from the U.S. Postal.” Kjærgaard did not have to dope alone whilst at the US team, but was taken into the programme. “I was part of the now well-known U.S. Postal regime to prepare riders to the limit. I was on the carousel for nearly three seasons.” However, he did not know what his teammates were doing, doping-wise, he claimed. “I did not have direct knowledge of this. It was a closed system, and I chose to keep it closed.” The confession comes the day after the UCI announced that it would accept the lifetime ban for Lance Armstrong, based on USADA's anti-doping investigation. “I have not been able to carry the lie anymore, so I am sitting here today. Hopefully something good out of it in time, but right now I am very hurt,” Kjærgaard said. “I hope no other Norwegian cyclists are taking or have taken the choice I made 15 years ago.”

Kjærgaard's sports director at Chicky World was Kim Andersen, who denied knowing about the doping. He told Ekstrabladet.dk that he was surprised,”because I had no idea about it.” Now with RadioShack-Nissan, Andersen said, “The whole thing is sad. That's all I can say.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kjaerga ... -us-postal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gastheerg]

Wat ik al zei. Veel groter dan we denken!!!

Ik kon de link de afgelopen maanden niet meer vinden maar hier popt het weer op!

Journaliste: ‘Lance Armstrong probeerde Obama en Clinton te manipuleren’

[roodhoofd]

Interessant, een oud-US Postal renner die niet in het USADA-onderzoek is gehoord, derhalve geen onderdeel uitmaakt van een mogelijke deal over strafvermindering, maar die nu ook bekent...

Retired Norwegian rider Steffen Kjærgaard, who rode for US Postal from 2000 to 2003, has confessed to using EPO, starting in 1998. He had no knowledge of any other rider using doping products, he said at a press conference on Tuesday. “For nearly 15 years I have kept a lie. What has emerged in recent weeks from the USADA revelations has forced to pull out my dark lies of the past,” Kjærgaard said, according to ProCycling.no. He turned pro with TVM-Farm Frites in 1996, and joined Team Chicky World in 1998, before moving to US Postal. He rode the Tour de France in support of Lance Armstrong in 2000 and 2001.

He started doping in 1998, buying EPO on his own initiative, but relied on the help and guidance of Belgian doctor Georges Mouton. “I wanted help with my health and to avoid being caught. Good results paved the way for an offer from the U.S. Postal.” Kjærgaard did not have to dope alone whilst at the US team, but was taken into the programme. “I was part of the now well-known U.S. Postal regime to prepare riders to the limit. I was on the carousel for nearly three seasons.” However, he did not know what his teammates were doing, doping-wise, he claimed. “I did not have direct knowledge of this. It was a closed system, and I chose to keep it closed.” The confession comes the day after the UCI announced that it would accept the lifetime ban for Lance Armstrong, based on USADA's anti-doping investigation. “I have not been able to carry the lie anymore, so I am sitting here today. Hopefully something good out of it in time, but right now I am very hurt,” Kjærgaard said. “I hope no other Norwegian cyclists are taking or have taken the choice I made 15 years ago.”

Kjærgaard's sports director at Chicky World was Kim Andersen, who denied knowing about the doping. He told Ekstrabladet.dk that he was surprised,”because I had no idea about it.” Now with RadioShack-Nissan, Andersen said, “The whole thing is sad. That's all I can say.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kjaerga ... -us-postal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

En: deze Kjaergaard had wat te verliezen door dit te bekennen, en heeft dat ook verloren: ontslagen uit zijn baan bij de Noorse fietsbond!
Komt uit heel betrouwbare bron
http://www.telegraaf.nl/telesport/wiele ... ikt__.html

[Ernie C.]

ARTICLE 17: STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
No action may be commenced against an Athlete or other
Person for an anti-doping rule violation contained in the Code
unless such action is commenced within eight (8) years from
the date the violation is asserted to have occurred.

Waar staat dat je mag afwijken?

Correctie, je hebt gelijk, het staat niet in de WADA Code, maar het CAS bepaalde dat van Article 17 of the Code mag worden afgeweken in het geval de principles of private law van het betreffende land daar mogelijkheden toe bieden. In dit geval dus in de V.S. En die bieden dat.

Reasoned Decision (p154-155):
"The eight-year statute of limitation found in Article 17 of the Code is not absolute. As the CAS panel in CAS 2005/C/841 CONI found, the “interruption, suspension, expiry or extension of such [eight-year] time-bar . . . . should be dealt with in the context of the principles of private law of the country where the interested sports authority is domiciled.” (CONI, ¶ 78) As the anti-doping organization conducting results management, USADA is the “interested party” in this case. Thus, the statute of limitations issue should be analyzed according to U.S. law. Under U.S. law, the running of a statute of limitation is suspended when a person has fraudulently concealed his conduct: “one who wrongfully conceals material facts and thereby prevents discovery of his wrong . . . is not permitted to assert the statute of limitations as a bar to an action against him, thus taking advantage of his own wrong, until the expiration of the full statutory period from the time when the facts were discovered or should, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered.” (Pacific Electric Co., 310 F.2d 271, at 277 (quoting 34 Am.Jur. 188)) As detailed in Section VII above, Mr. Armstrong fraudulently concealed his doping from USADA in many ways, including lying under oath in the SCA case; lying in the 2000 French judicial investigation; intimidating witnesses; and soliciting false affidavits. Mr. Armstrong cannot benefit from the running of a statute of limitation when a violation would have
been asserted by USADA earlier but for his fraudulent concealment."

Nog even terugkomend op gisteren: Er bestaat dus jurisprudentie waarin staat dat er in sommige gevallen van de verjaringstermijn mag worden afgeweken maar dit betreft een document uit 2005, dus voor het in werking treden van de UNESCO convention (2007). Op die conventie is onder meer dit besloten:http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-D ... vernments/
Ik vraag mij dus ten zeerste af of dat deze regeling een nieuwe arbitragezaak bij het CAS zou overleven, laat staan een rechtszaak.
Het is in ieder geval een zeer interessante en leerzame discussie.

[materialist]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -clawbacks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Socolow guesses Armstrong was “able to demand very specific language” addressing any forthcoming doping allegations.“The language probably would have said something to the effect of, any allegation that Lance Armstrong has engaged in doping is not sufficient for a breach of this morals clause without an admission by Lance Armstrong or a final verdict or decision by a court of law after all appeals have been exhausted.” This would help explain his continued denials.

DC had dus gelijk

[Ernie C.]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -clawbacks

Socolow guesses Armstrong was “able to demand very specific language” addressing any forthcoming doping allegations.“The language probably would have said something to the effect of, any allegation that Lance Armstrong has engaged in doping is not sufficient for a breach of this morals clause without an admission by Lance Armstrong or a final verdict or decision by a court of law after all appeals have been exhausted.” This would help explain his continued denials.

DC had dus gelijk

Maar het stukje wat je quote begint al met "Socolow guesses". Niet echt een degelijke basis om iemand gelijk op te geven.
Het klopt natuurlijk wel dat er voordat een rechter zich uitgesproken heeft over de schuld van Armstrong en eventueel over het terecht toepassen van de de verlengde verjaringstermijn het heel moeilijk zal worden voor bedrijven om daadwerkelijk geld van hem terug te krijgen.
Dat het juridisch aantrekkelijk is om zich niet te verdedigen zal minstens net zo'n grote rol spelen als zijn onvermogen om fouten toe te geven.

[tilion]

Welke renner heeft sinds de jaren 60 clean de tour gewonnen? of zelfs maar bij de eerste 20 gereden? Wat een heksenjacht om "niks". zet er een streep onder en zorg dat de de fouten in de bestrijding van doping er uit gaan.

[materialist]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... -clawbacks

Socolow guesses Armstrong was “able to demand very specific language” addressing any forthcoming doping allegations.“The language probably would have said something to the effect of, any allegation that Lance Armstrong has engaged in doping is not sufficient for a breach of this morals clause without an admission by Lance Armstrong or a final verdict or decision by a court of law after all appeals have been exhausted.” This would help explain his continued denials.

DC had dus gelijk

Maar het stukje wat je quote begint al met "Socolow guesses". Niet echt een degelijke basis om iemand gelijk op te geven.
Het klopt natuurlijk wel dat er voordat een rechter zich uitgesproken heeft over de schuld van Armstrong en eventueel over het terecht toepassen van de de verlengde verjaringstermijn het heel moeilijk zal worden voor bedrijven om daadwerkelijk geld van hem terug te krijgen.
Dat het juridisch aantrekkelijk is om zich niet te verdedigen zal minstens net zo'n grote rol spelen als zijn onvermogen om fouten toe te geven.

je hebt gelijk, herstel: dc, je hebt voorwaardelijk gelijk

daarnaast krijgt de eisen de volle bewijslast dus beyond reasonable doubt. En de tour directie wist dat er doping gebruikt wordt voor een Nederlandse rechter wordt dat een enorme klus