Simeoni Questioned For Three Hours

B. Lafferty said:

From L'Equipe:

Filippo Simeoni entendu

Le coureur italien Filippo Simeoni a été entendu mardi à la brigade
antistupéfiants des carabiniers (NAS) de Florence dans le cadre de
l'incident de course qui l'a opposé à l'Américain Lance Armstrong lors
du Tour de France.

Au terme des trois heures d'audition, les enquêteurs se sont réservé le
droit d'ouvrir une procédure judiciaire à l'encontre d'Armstrong pour
fraude sportive, violence privée et intimidation de témoin.

Simeoni figure en effet comme témoin de l'accusation dans le procès
actuellement en cours contre le médecin sportif Michele Ferrari, que
l'Américain a toujours farouchement défendu.

L'an passé, Simeoni avait porté plainte contre Armstrong qui l'avait
traité de «menteur» dans la presse à propos de son témoignage dans ce
procès.
Dans l'étape de Lons-le-Saunier, Simeoni a estimé avoir «subi une grande
injustice de la part d'Armstrong».

Simeoni, parti en contre-attaque derrière l'échappée du jour, a vu
Armstrong prendre son sillage et provoquer de facto sa perte. Le
coureur italien a accepté de se relever à la demande de ses compagnons
afin de ne pas compromettre la réussite de l'échappée.

This is remarkable for two reasons:

1. The Italian NAS appears not to understand one of the main features of
modern racing, which is that one must often collude with opponents in
order to have a chance at a win. An additional fact of stage racing is
that stages are not always contested by GC contenders if the composition
of the escape is appropriate (the result being events like Voeckler's 10
day run in yellow).

2. Lafferty didn't put "Armstrong" in the subject line.

Robert Chung said:

The Italian NAS appears not to understand one of the main features of
modern racing, which is that one must often collude with opponents in
order to have a chance at a win.

I guess it *could* be argued that one of the original break-away riders
was colluding with Armstrong to stop Simeoni from joining. I don't think
that's highly probable, though. Whos colluding were you thinking of?

Quoted message said:

An additional fact of stage racing is
that stages are not always contested by GC contenders if the composition
of the escape is appropriate (the result being events like Voeckler's 10
day run in yellow).

That seems to me an argument in favour of Simeoni because in this case,
the break-away was certainly no threat to Armstrong's GC position.

Ewoud Dronkert said:

Robert Chung said:

The Italian NAS appears not to understand one of the main features of
modern racing, which is that one must often collude with opponents in
order to have a chance at a win.

I guess it *could* be argued that one of the original break-away riders
was colluding with Armstrong to stop Simeoni from joining. I don't think
that's highly probable, though. Whos colluding were you thinking of?

I'm not saying that the break was colluding with Simeoni, I'm saying that
breaks must collude in order to keep away from the peloton. On stage 18,
there were six guys in the break, representing six teams. They had to
agree to work together. However, we do also know that some members of the
break asked Simeoni to leave the break, which he did. That, too, is
collusion: by dropping out, Simeoni's actions changed the result of the
stage. I can understand if the Italian authorities wanted to question
Armstrong about "intimidation de temoin." I can't understand that they
would do so for "fraude sportive."

Robert Chung said:

I'm not saying that the break was colluding with Simeoni, I'm saying that
breaks must collude in order to keep away from the peloton. On stage 18,
there were six guys in the break, representing six teams. They had to
agree to work together. However, we do also know that some members of the
break asked Simeoni to leave the break, which he did. That, too, is
collusion: by dropping out, Simeoni's actions changed the result of the
stage. I can understand if the Italian authorities wanted to question
Armstrong about "intimidation de temoin." I can't understand that they
would do so for "fraude sportive."

As you of course know, Simeoni was only asked to get dropped because he
would then also take Armstrong with him, which would increase the
break's chances of staying away from zero to non-zero. So, Armstrong's
presence was changing the attitude of the break towards Simeoni from
neutral or even positive (Domina Vacanze not represented yet) to
downright hostile. I think this might be the basis for sporting fraud,
if that really is going to be an official accusation (which I doubt).
The sole fact of Armsting himself bridging, is breaking all silent
understandings but in itself not sporting fraud.

Ewoud Dronkert said:

As you of course know, Simeoni was only asked to get dropped because he
would then also take Armstrong with him, which would increase the
break's chances of staying away from zero to non-zero. So, Armstrong's
presence was changing the attitude of the break towards Simeoni from
neutral or even positive (Domina Vacanze not represented yet) to
downright hostile. I think this might be the basis for sporting fraud,
if that really is going to be an official accusation (which I doubt).
The sole fact of Armsting himself bridging, is breaking all silent
understandings but in itself not sporting fraud.

Yeah. My point was that the original article talked about the NAS reserved
the right to charge Armstrong with sporting fraud. If the grounds for
sporting fraud is that a rider can change the outcome of a race, all the
racers in every stage race are committing sporting fraud, whether by
action or by inaction. That's nuts.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Ewoud Dronkert said:

As you of course know, Simeoni was only asked to get dropped because he
would then also take Armstrong with him, which would increase the
break's chances of staying away from zero to non-zero. So, Armstrong's
presence was changing the attitude of the break towards Simeoni from
neutral or even positive (Domina Vacanze not represented yet) to
downright hostile. I think this might be the basis for sporting fraud,
if that really is going to be an official accusation (which I doubt).
The sole fact of Armsting himself bridging, is breaking all silent
understandings but in itself not sporting fraud.

Yeah. My point was that the original article talked about the NAS reserved
the right to charge Armstrong with sporting fraud. If the grounds for
sporting fraud is that a rider can change the outcome of a race, all the
racers in every stage race are committing sporting fraud, whether by
action or by inaction. That's nuts.

I doubt that the sporting fraud would relate to this particular incident in
the Tour. More likely, it would relate to sporting fraud in relation to
actions centering on doping by Ferrari in which Armstrong might be viewed as
an accessory or co-conspirator. With what we know, which no doubt isn't
quite what the Italian police know, it seems that Armstrong's biggest worry
would be intimidation of a witness in an existing criminal prosecution and
acting toward that witness in a manner designed to intimidate other
witnesses, either potential ones or ones already cooperating with the
authorities.