• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Could LA sue UCI for not policing him enough?

Basecase said:
Well - could he?

No.

Given IANAL and it only takes a lawyer with sufficient imagination to try, could it still happen? No. Thom Wiesel owns USA Cycling and Thom is the brains behind the Wonderboy myth.

Would Wonderboy try in Switzerland? Probably not. There is some relationship between the UCI and Wonderboy that the UCI protects at all costs for reasons that are not known. My guess is there is some kind of mutually assured destruction relationship at work bigger than whatever has already been published.
 
May 29, 2012
169
0
0
Visit site
Basecase said:
Well - could he?

I could understand if it were the other way round.

Some David Walsh tweets:

(29 Sep 12)
Three Armstrong teammates have said in affidavits for USADA that LA said he could get rid of positive test or find a way around doping laws

(29 Sep 12)
When UCI receive USADA's report and read that rmstrong has questioned their integrity, will they decide to sue him, as they have Kimmage?

(22 Oct 12)
Be good if someone asked McQuaid if UCI intended to sue LA. He told teammates he could get positives covered up, i.e. that they were corrupt
 
Oct 19, 2012
23
0
0
Visit site
LA and the UCI secret deal

Well the case was made before that LA´s cancer should have come out with the GCH markers. The state his cancer was at in 1996 was so advanced any doping tests he took before Oct1996 should have detected his cancer.
Listed in Jv´s affidavit and JV picked up on it asking him why UCI had never mentioned it to him.
LA said...well now if I ever have a problem with them(UCI) then I have this card to play.

based on this, I always suspected LA and the UCI (pre2005) had some kind of secret deal. the UCI´s complete lack of investigating LA with so many situations, and also their aggressive attack of whoever did questions LA ( journalists, french lab 1999 Tdf results, Heins stupid never never never comment etc etc etc...)
The obvious question was why is the UCI SO committed to defend LA?
one plausible answer was that LA had dirt on the UCI.
Another is that they had some kind of deal together....(payments evidence that).

Also as Kimmage pointed out today...LA told various teamates he could make +tests go away. that he practiaclly had the UCI in his pocket.
SO why isnt the UCI suing LA as it is Kimmage. Same deal.

it doesnt add up.
 
GuidoG said:
Well the case was made before that LA´s cancer should have come out with the GCH markers. The state his cancer was at in 1996 was so advanced any doping tests he took before Oct1996 should have detected his cancer.
Listed in Jv´s affidavit and JV picked up on it asking him why UCI had never mentioned it to him.
LA said...well now if I ever have a problem with them(UCI) then I have this card to play.

based on this, I always suspected LA and the UCI (pre2005) had some kind of secret deal. the UCI´s complete lack of investigating LA with so many situations, and also their aggressive attack of whoever did questions LA ( journalists, french lab 1999 Tdf results, Heins stupid never never never comment etc etc etc...)
The obvious question was why is the UCI SO committed to defend LA?
one plausible answer was that LA had dirt on the UCI.
Another is that they had some kind of deal together....(payments evidence that).

Also as Kimmage pointed out today...LA told various teamates he could make +tests go away. that he practiaclly had the UCI in his pocket.
SO why isnt the UCI suing LA as it is Kimmage. Same deal.

it doesnt add up.
On the one hand, whatever dirt Lance has on them is beyond imagination huge. Yet, he end up being the one handing out 6-figure amounts like champagne glasses on a TdF victory party. Also doesn't add up. A good blackmail scheme should not have you end up paying money extra.
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
What should happen is any rider involved in a crash with an admitted doped rider should file a claim against Lance and the UCI saying that they created an unsafe work environment. Anybody's employer that knows an employee is on drugs while operating machinery is on the hook for that one in the US.
Long list of cases against pizza delivery guys,bus drivers,fork lift operators, construction workers, ect. If the boss/owner knows somebody is a user it's easy money for those who get injured.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Visit site
fatandfast said:
What should happen is any rider involved in a crash with an admitted doped rider should file a claim against Lance and the UCI saying that they created an unsafe work environment. Anybody's employer that knows an employee is on drugs while operating machinery is on the hook for that one in the US.
Long list of cases against pizza delivery guys,bus drivers,fork lift operators, construction workers, ect. If the boss/owner knows somebody is a user it's easy money for those who get injured.

But F&F if it happened in a TdF of the 198 riders there are only a handful of riders that their peers acknowledge are not on the juice.

Pot calling the kettle black? :)

In his last TdF Armstrong spent an extraordinary amount of time making friends with the black top. Do you think these accidents were through overjuicing to compensate for his advancing years?