Ullrich fined

by NE Observer on Apr 12, 2008 1:24 PM EDT

He pays a million Euros in the sporting fraud case against him in Germany. Why would he do that? Just to make it (expensively) go away? I don't understand how it could possibly have been found to be fraud if ... any one of the following is true: a) the team was managing or directing or requiring it (evidence not yet complete, as far as we know), b) the team knew about it (a strong probable), or c) others on the team were also doing it (known). Why didn't the suit include Aldag or any of the other Telekommers who've actually confessed?

Who was being defrauded? The public? Why by Ullrich alone? The sport of cycling? Same question -- plus, Give me a break! ARD? I read they paid Ullrich a hefty retainer, maybe a million Euros a year. They've been pretty prickly on the subject, yanking their coverage in mid-TdF after the 2007 doping scandals. Are they behind that professor who mounted the suit? And why wouldn't they have just sued Jan directly?

On another note -- yet another German rider has now had an epithet permanently attached to his name in the "rosy-fingered dawn" mode. Joing "the ever-popular Jens Voigt," we now have "disgraced former Tour de France winner Jan Ullrich." VN always says this! They don't say "Disgraced former Tour de France winner Bjarne Riis," do they? Of course, Bjarne confessed and can therefore be labeled "Confessed doper and former Tour winner Bjarne Riis." Plus, he has had a second act.

Where oh where is poor Ulle getting his advice from?? I worry about him.

0 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

guess:

defrauding the sponsors . . .

And if that's so, I would expect the shoe/hammer/whatever to fall in the direction of Godefroot/Pevenage/Ludqig in short order.

Because I'm thinking that Ulle no flip unless he planned on taking folks down with him.

by R Mc on Apr 12, 2008 2:28 PM EDT 0 recs

I don't think it means fraud

in the usual sense. I'm no expert in euro law, but I think this is the same law as is used to prosecute match fixing and has been expanded to cover other forms of cheating to affect the result of a sporting contest. In that sense it is the result or contest itself that is a fraud. The real purpose of the law is to prevent manipulation of the results for purposes of making swags of money gambling on the results. SO the people defrauded are the gambling public.

by Rothko on Apr 12, 2008 6:48 PM EDT 0 recs

just a quicky, here

The case is fraud against the sponsor, TMobile. Ullrich is paying anywhere from 250 000 to 1 million euro to settle it, rather than proceed. This is the same case that led the German authorities to raid his house in Switzerland, and which drew on evidence from the Puerto files. Basically, Ulle cut a deal. No more case.

by gavia on Apr 12, 2008 7:34 PM EDT 0 recs

Did T-Mobile bring the case?

I thought it was the German anti-doping professor who did. Francke.

And the question still stands: why Jan and Jan only? Why not Pevenage? Why not Godefoote & Ludwig? Why not Aldag, Zabel (once, only once!), Riis, Henn and whoever else has confessed? If the case is only for more recent fraud against T-Mobile and not the earlier Telekomm version of the team, why not add Sinkewitz, Kessler and Vinokourov as the evidence appeared? (And if actual evidence isn't required, why not Kloden?)

If Ullrich is paying to avoid having to testify in court, it's easy to imagine this move won't accomplish that, given the potential for other cases to which his testimony would be relevant.

Maybe the suggestion above from R Mc that Jan is going to flip and give up some names is right. But why wouldn't his counsel have gotten him a better deal? They're supposed to give YOU something if you name names.

by NE Observer on Apr 12, 2008 9:01 PM EDT up 0 recs

Jan is the biggest fish

Why Jan and only Jan? Similar to why Bonds is the most highly criticized. I'm not talking about the prejury case rather about his treatment by the media. More splash.

Zabel would be big. Jan is bigger.

by Punctured on Apr 12, 2008 9:17 PM EDT up 0 recs

Stupidity Cubed

Two caveats: first, I think the entire concept of sporting fraud as a crime is ridiculous (and if it has to be a matter for the courts, it ought to be civil and not criminal). Second, I have no idea what I'm talking about.

That being said, what in the world does settling a case like this accomplish for the public? Presumably the prosecuting authorities pursued it on behalf of the public interest in seeing honest sporting. The theory being that a conviction would punish the person who violated the public trust, and that such a conviction would serve as a deterrent to future possible violators of the public trust. Yet here we just get an exchange of euros and nothing else.

So does a fine (and likely some mealy mouthed statement that doesn't admit guilt) accomplish for anyone involved? Ullrich isn't rolling in it, but I suspect it's not going to break him. The German public isn't going to benefit. And no future Bassos or Armstrongs are going to reconsider their plans for world domination after seeing a (cue pinky finger) one million euro fine.

What a waste of time and opportunity.

by Sui Juris on Apr 12, 2008 9:43 PM EDT 0 recs