Kimmage unleashes hell, counter-sues Verbruggen & McQuaid - Page 26 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 11-06-12, 10:43
yakhillclimb yakhillclimb is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CobbleStoner View Post
mancrush? seriously? I have always hated Lance Armstrong, a tri-geek, an arrogant a hole. I have always hated how the media thought he was the end all be all of cycling, but that being said, he is one of the only ones not throwing anybody under the bus to make himself look better.
I am really glad I am not a kid growing up today if it is ok to be a rat, a tattletale. that is not how I was raised, and I am not a criminal, just a real man. I feel sorry for those of you that live in glass houses.
F Lance, F Landis, F Tygart,
Gent 6 is coming up, cycling rules!
That's true... but he only threw everyone under the bus BEFORE he got caught.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 11-06-12, 11:14
Baroh1488 Baroh1488 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 60
Default

What Kimmage is using is called a Counterpunch. Can be very effective, especially if your opponent underestimate you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijk4Y2vsNBw
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 11-06-12, 19:40
gree0232 gree0232 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
You are pleading to all these "avengers" to show mercy to the unmerciful Armstrong now that the referee is counting him out.

If I was rightly due $800,000 from Armstrong or anybody I would not walk away.

Very wishful thinking on your part.

It is credibly believed that Armstrong was calling the shots for the UCI. They adopted his bullying tactics through law suits against Armstrong foes, Pound, Landis and Kimmage, to silence them.

Now Kimmage has opened up a second front against the UCI in defense and counter attack.

Kimmage (and the Swiss prosecutors) has the opportunity to probe the Armstrong "donations". I expect from the UCI top executives' conduct there were more donations than revealed and those revealed did not make it into the UCI's bank accounts/books.

Armstrong then could be subject to criminal prosecution under US foreign bribery law.
No, what I am saying is there is a point in which the recovery of funds is less about the recovery of funds and more about 'revenge'. There is a lot of time, energy, and even expense involved in recovering funds.

Lance is disgraced. Is there really any point in dragging out the little details any further? That seems to be what many people want, as if having 16 years of being drug through the mud by Armstrong should equate to 16 years of dragging him through the mud in reverse? Except that Lance lost, you won right?

Then there is the reality of the fight, and it is a fight. Like it or not, a lot of people made a lot of money off of LA and those interests will defend themselves.

There is also the actual sport to think about. I realize there are those who really enjoy the saga of WADA vs UCI, UCI vs. Kimmage ... but what the hell has happened to our sport when THAT is the race people are watching and rooting rather than bike races?

There really is little to be gained from attempting to recover the funds at this point, or at least, its up to those who lost it rather than you or I. My caution is against getting emotionally invested in that decision making process. Sometimes, its best to let sleeping dogs lie.

What I fear is that should some think the expense is simply not worth the effort, we will see a repeat of WADA vs UCI - as in, the Times is part of a conspiracy ... rather than just sick of it. Let it go, Lance was caught.

Do we want clean cycling or revenge?
__________________
I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.
- Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 11-06-12, 19:55
autologous autologous is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 183
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
There is also the actual sport to think about. I realize there are those who really enjoy the saga of WADA vs UCI, UCI vs. Kimmage ... but what the hell has happened to our sport when THAT is the race people are watching and rooting rather than bike races?
You turd. You present this view now, when it is deluded Lance defenders such as yourself that have been instrumental in delaying this day of reckoning for cycling. Why is it taking so long for cycling to get its house in order? Because assclowns like you have been fighting tooth & nail to deny and delay and deny and delay the inevitable. Screw you.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 11-06-12, 20:13
DirtyWorks's Avatar
DirtyWorks DirtyWorks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 6,983
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
I expect from the UCI top executives' conduct there were more donations than revealed and those revealed did not make it into the UCI's bank accounts/books.
This is where I think it is going and I don't think this is the worst of it. The advent of EPO allows them to pick winners. What if TdF titles have been sold by Pat and Hein?

Even if you think that allegation is as nutty as it sounds, judging by the way Hein and Pat still defend Wonderboy there is something really, really hidden that keeps those terrorists in a standoff.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 11-06-12, 20:48
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
No, what I am saying is there is a point in which the recovery of funds is less about the recovery of funds and more about 'revenge'. There is a lot of time, energy, and even expense involved in recovering funds.
Revenge?
It is not revenge to rightfully seek the money Armstrong deceitfully took form them.
In fact to do anything other than that would mean being a fraudulent bully pays - I am sure you would not want that......

Quote:
Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
Lance is disgraced. Is there really any point in dragging out the little details any further? That seems to be what many people want, as if having 16 years of being drug through the mud by Armstrong should equate to 16 years of dragging him through the mud in reverse? Except that Lance lost, you won right?

Then there is the reality of the fight, and it is a fight. Like it or not, a lot of people made a lot of money off of LA and those interests will defend themselves.

There is also the actual sport to think about. I realize there are those who really enjoy the saga of WADA vs UCI, UCI vs. Kimmage ... but what the hell has happened to our sport when THAT is the race people are watching and rooting rather than bike races?

There really is little to be gained from attempting to recover the funds at this point, or at least, its up to those who lost it rather than you or I. My caution is against getting emotionally invested in that decision making process. Sometimes, its best to let sleeping dogs lie.

What I fear is that should some think the expense is simply not worth the effort, we will see a repeat of WADA vs UCI - as in, the Times is part of a conspiracy ... rather than just sick of it. Let it go, Lance was caught.

Do we want clean cycling or revenge?
The sport.
How does not exposing dopers help "the sport"?

Armstrong is a fraud - and he was aided and abetted by the UCI - if nothing is done against them, then nothing will change.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 11-06-12, 21:06
Velodude Velodude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
No, what I am saying is there is a point in which the recovery of funds is less about the recovery of funds and more about 'revenge'. There is a lot of time, energy, and even expense involved in recovering funds.

Lance is disgraced. Is there really any point in dragging out the little details any further? That seems to be what many people want, as if having 16 years of being drug through the mud by Armstrong should equate to 16 years of dragging him through the mud in reverse? Except that Lance lost, you won right?

Then there is the reality of the fight, and it is a fight. Like it or not, a lot of people made a lot of money off of LA and those interests will defend themselves.

There is also the actual sport to think about. I realize there are those who really enjoy the saga of WADA vs UCI, UCI vs. Kimmage ... but what the hell has happened to our sport when THAT is the race people are watching and rooting rather than bike races?

There really is little to be gained from attempting to recover the funds at this point, or at least, its up to those who lost it rather than you or I. My caution is against getting emotionally invested in that decision making process. Sometimes, its best to let sleeping dogs lie.

What I fear is that should some think the expense is simply not worth the effort, we will see a repeat of WADA vs UCI - as in, the Times is part of a conspiracy ... rather than just sick of it. Let it go, Lance was caught.

Do we want clean cycling or revenge?
Instead of posting on cycling forums inanely begging subscribers to back off on villifying Armstrong I suggest you make personal pleas to those potential suitors who have Armstrong's dwindling assets in their cross hairs.

ASO, SCA, Times, Livestrong donors, Floyd Landis, US Department of Justice, IRS, USPS, Nike (?), Trek (?), Oakley (?), gullible and unknowing Tailwind investors to mention a few.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 11-07-12, 04:48
gree0232 gree0232 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by autologous View Post
You turd. You present this view now, when it is deluded Lance defenders such as yourself that have been instrumental in delaying this day of reckoning for cycling. Why is it taking so long for cycling to get its house in order? Because assclowns like you have been fighting tooth & nail to deny and delay and deny and delay the inevitable. Screw you.
Lets be very clear at what I defended before we launch into another trollish invective.

I admonished the lot of you to stop using press leaks as a method of anti-doping investigation. I extolled the bunch of you to follow the money, as its was the lube that greased the doping wheels so to speak and is impossible to hide in this day and age. Furthermore, in sharp contrast to tell all books, recommended that we use the same tactics that are used to break up other criminal elements that smuggle drugs ... like cartels. You know police action, search warrants, etc. Furthermore, I recommended that we use targeted drug testing based on insider tips that would help us produce evidence rather than innuendo.

The lot of Lance Haters dismissed those suggestions as 'trolling'. And yet, as predicted years ago, those were the tactics that either would or would not produce the goods to prove or exonerate Lance Armstrong.

The public back and forth between the UCI and WADA? Between Pound and McQaid? Right it produced absolutely nothing. The back and forth between Lance and Floyd. Right, absolutely nothing. The lance haters vs. the lance lovers. Right, nichts. Random dudes we have never heard of coming out and lambasting the UCI or someone else? Yep, nada.

But NOW Kimmage vs. McQaid is supposed to accomplish what? THAT will be the thing that finally rides cycling of doping? These public antics have a proven track record of anti-doping success do they?

Or did we just ignore the lesson of 16 years of Lance Hunting, and decide to totally and completely reinforce the past failures for no other reason than to speciously call someone a hypocrite?

Because that is what cycling needs. Not analysis, but further emotional claims and vengeance. We need to eek every penny we can out of LA even if it drains us entirely and accomplishes nothing more vengeance.

What cycling needs is not stability and sound analysis, it needs a great big scarlet V?

Helpful.
__________________
I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.
- Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 11-07-12, 04:57
Hugh Januss's Avatar
Hugh Januss Hugh Januss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: socal
Posts: 5,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gree0232 View Post
This message is hidden because gree0232 is on your ignore list.
Jesus, you are so totally clueless. I am not sure you even know what you are really thinking.

Please stop embarrassing yourself, you are starting to even make me feel sorry for you, and I don't like that feeling.
__________________
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings."

Gods don't kill people, people with Gods kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 11-07-12, 05:05
gree0232 gree0232 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velodude View Post
Instead of posting on cycling forums inanely begging subscribers to back off on villifying Armstrong I suggest you make personal pleas to those potential suitors who have Armstrong's dwindling assets in their cross hairs.

ASO, SCA, Times, Livestrong donors, Floyd Landis, US Department of Justice, IRS, USPS, Nike (?), Trek (?), Oakley (?), gullible and unknowing Tailwind investors to mention a few.
I suggest that instead of lashing out whenever anyone disagrees with you, you realize that the topic is anti-doping. And it only makes sense that when you recommend a course of action you keep a couple of things in mind.

Purpose: Why are we doing something? Or should we? Who does it benefit? Cycling or ... getting LA - whom we already got? Maybe we should go after Merckx too? That helpful?

Method: How are we going to do it? Have we given it an honest cost benefit analysis? At what point so we hit a position of diminished returns on our efforts? Have we thought through likely countering actions? Attempting, you know, a little a little proactive planning?

Endstate: What is it we desire to achieve? Are we aiming for clean cycling? Stable, exciting racing? Or are we attempting to exact a pound, no pun intended, of flesh? Ergo, the question should be asked, if the Times goes to the expense of recovering its payment, we will have accomplished ... what? If they decide not too? What does that change?

No matter how you skin it, LA is going to remain a very wealthy man. Going after him for 800K is ... pretty much a waste of everyone's time IMO.

There are bigger fish to fry. And when the numbers make that effort worthwhile, as in SCA's case, the calculus changes.

Its worth crunching the numbers and conducting an honest assessment.

Or I suppose we can learn the incorrect lessons of the lance lovers, who spent 16 years whining that everyone who defended LA was a troll and a heathen who did not deserve to live as a human being ... waiting for someone else to do the hard work of actually proving something.

Well, suit yourself, but I have to wonder why you would come to a forum on anti-doping if you don't want to discuss doping?

Again, suing LA to recover funds from a dead case is just a waste of time. Like suing someone to recover a nickle. David Millar makes some interesting points reference the UCI and its increasingly untenable position.

Notice that he does it intelligently, and without calling people incorigable trolls who should not dare to comment in a way that is different than his opinion.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycl...ss-says-millar

Perhaps we might also learn from old mutton chops himself, who founded a team based on anti-doping, lead the AIGCP, publishes articles in the NYTIMES - which appear to have absolutely no cat calls and innuendo, but appear constructive, learned, and attempt to build consensus in a manner that .. may just produce results. Go figure.

So are David Millar and good old JV trolls? Or just those who notice that their comments and actions appear just SLIGHTLY more beneficial and constructive for cycling than say ... dredging up a dead case to pursue the equivalent of chump change or igniting a white trash WWF match between McQaid and Kimmage?

As fascinating as it may be for some to watch a couple of cape wearing latex encapsulated middle aged fat boys slam each other off the proverbial top rope ... I would prefer that we do things that return the focus to racing.

If the former is what you really want, I suggest Luchador wrestling. After all Luchador wrestling does about as much good for bike racing as the current Kimmage v. McQaid imbroglio is managing to accomplish.

I suppose its keeping a couple of Swiss lawyers and their families from starving to death ... so there is the humanitarian aspect of it all I suppose.
__________________
I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.
- Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:51.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.