Kimmage unleashes hell, counter-sues Verbruggen & McQuaid

[python]

Probably the last thing any sporting federation in Switzerland would want, to be sued by a local

yeah, i think the skins action is less about the actual suing and the recovery of damages (they seem to be doing just fine with the 10s of millions in sales), but rather about putting a financial pressure on the uci.

it sends a message to the uci stakeholders and the national federations that foot the uci bills, 'look where your money is going - to a mufti-million dollar litigation. is that where you want your money ?"

it only would take several more federations to speak up and the critical mass may squash the evil duo.

 

[Scorpius]

Verbruggen and Mc Quaid's respective positions at the UCI are now completely untenable.

 

[Basecase]

http://www.98fm.com/2012/category-news-sport/category-sport/kimmage-uci-nov2012-0211/

 

[gree0232]

What is funny about hyper partisan threads like this is the duplicitous standards in cycling that are ripping this sport apart.

The same people who called a law suit against one side of this system a travesty and 'unfair', are calling a counter suit the righteous unleashing of hell?

I call it a demonstration of a group of petulant children, too stupid and too stubborn to care about anything but their own egos.

I guess the drama here sells more coverage than actual bike racing though ... so, let the antics of over grown kinder-gardeners continue. I am sure this is about anti-doping and what is best for the sport rater than mutually over stubborn ego maniacs ripping into each other.

I say push the whole lot out of the sport!

 

[shojii]

What is funny about hyper partisan threads like this is the duplicitous standards in cycling that are ripping this sport apart.

The same people who called a law suit against one side of this system a travesty and 'unfair', are calling a counter suit the righteous unleashing of hell?

I call it a demonstration of a group of petulant children, too stupid and too stubborn to care about anything but their own egos.

I guess the drama here sells more coverage than actual bike racing though ... so, let the antics of over grown kinder-gardeners continue. I am sure this is about anti-doping and what is best for the sport rater than mutually over stubborn ego maniacs ripping into each other.

I say push the whole lot out of the sport!

Ummm, one side 'of the system' as (you put it) has proven itself corrupt and self serving. The other, is merely seeking truth on behalf of those wronged. How is it 'duplicitious' that many of us support the latter camp?

 

[trailrunner]

it only would take several more federations to speak up and the critical mass may squash the evil duo.

Maybe USPS could join the party.

Are class action lawsuits allowed in Switzerland?

 

[noddy69]

What is funny about hyper partisan threads like this is the duplicitous standards in cycling that are ripping this sport apart.

The same people who called a law suit against one side of this system a travesty and 'unfair', are calling a counter suit the righteous unleashing of hell?

I call it a demonstration of a group of petulant children, too stupid and too stubborn to care about anything but their own egos.

I guess the drama here sells more coverage than actual bike racing though ... so, let the antics of over grown kinder-gardeners continue. I am sure this is about anti-doping and what is best for the sport rater than mutually over stubborn ego maniacs ripping into each other.

I say push the whole lot out of the sport!

Stupid and petulant ? Where do egos come into it ? I dont mind people having a different opinion but name calling and insults are not needed. The fact that the people who have destroyed cycling are the ones being sued is escaping you could be why you are resorting to it so I will reserve judgement till your next ridiculous post.

 

[Velodude]

out of curiosity, does anyone know the skins company annual sales/revenue or anything about their finances ?

i could not find much other than that they are well positioned internationally, enjoy healthy markets and were involved in some controversial advertising.

the fact that they are headquartered in switzerland, just like the uci, suggests that the legal action will likely be taking place in swiss courts.

Their origin is in Australia 1998.

They are no strangers to the court rooms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skins_(sportswear)

 

[Velodude]

The interesting part of the suit is that Skins are requesting 2m back due to the fact the McQuaid and Hein had misrepresented the contract that Skins signed. The contract for sponsorship was signed under the condition that doping and the sport was conducted in a fair and honest manner.

Now McQuaid (UCI) are compelled by the first letter to respond by either paying back the money or sending a response in return respectfully saying no. The interesting part is context. Its now in a "legal" context. If a letter is returned its deemed by the courts as "legal" and thus should truthful and honest. It is not a media statement.

Then Kimmidge has his own suit which also applies pressure. They have McQuaid (UCI) in the crosshairs.

As we know McQuaid knows full well of the extent of Armstrong's doping and what other teams were/are doing - he even applied pressure to certain people not to talk. If this wasn't fully represented to Skins during the contract signing then they have a right to their money back and they have a very good case. They cannot ignore the letter. McQuaid will have to state on "public record" that he was unaware of the doping.

Its a good play by Kimmidge/Skins.

UCI are caught here. I'm interested to see the UCI's next move. They have to tread very carefully.

(I say they'll pay the 2m back)

I did not see mention of a contract between UCI and SKINS. Only a list of sponsorships of national federations, cycling teams, etc.

It could be a long bow to claim UCI was part of the contract negotiations and misrepresented to induce SKINS into contract with those sponsorships.

BTW, UCI do not have $2m of uncommitted funds to pay back. Unless they have some sort of negligence insurance by "directors".

 

[gree0232]

Ummm, one side 'of the system' as (you put it) has proven itself corrupt and self serving. The other, is merely seeking truth on behalf of those wronged. How is it 'duplicitious' that many of us support the latter camp?

The sport is bike racing not a case of law and order.

This constant back and forth is pointless. Its stupid, and its not about 'evidence' is about a couple of straight up ding bats who think mutual law suits and press releases accomplish much of anything.

Well, if you are one side or the other, the other side is the devil.

Stupid. Ban the whole lot from cycling.

 

[noddy69]

The sport is bike racing not a case of law and order.

This constant back and forth is pointless. Its stupid, and its not about 'evidence' is about a couple of straight up ding bats who think mutual law suits and press releases accomplish much of anything.

Well, if you are one side or the other, the other side is the devil.

Stupid. Ban the whole lot from cycling.

Ok then lets ban the whole lot from cycling!!! your not following this are you. Kimmage was a cyclist is now a journalist therefore cannot be banned. Alot of his fellows on one side are no longer involved directly. Sponsors are getting involved ,so you would ban sponsors...on one side.
On the other you have people directly linked with corruption in cycling, so a ban works I can concede you that.
However you seem to troll that if all were banned somehow it would be fine. Your trolling doesnt even have your head in the sand, its made its way out of the sand and gone straight back up to your neck via a shortcut.

Edit; and 90,000 in a fund says it isnt just about a few dingbats.

 

[thehog]

I did not see mention of a contract between UCI and SKINS. Only a list of sponsorships of national federations, cycling teams, etc.

It could be a long bow to claim UCI was part of the contract negotiations and misrepresented to induce SKINS into contract with those sponsorships.

BTW, UCI do not have $2m of uncommitted funds to pay back. Unless they have some sort of negligence insurance by "directors".

The Federations and the teams are all part of of the UCI umbrella. The UCI is responsible for the anti-doping and administration of the sport by which the Federations and teams are governed by. The UCI has provided statements for the sponsorship agreements that the sport is run in a fair and equitable manner. If the UCI is working against a sponsor by protecting an athlete with rival sponsorship deals then its has broken the contract, the agreement and the law.

 

[Benotti69]

The sport is bike racing not a case of law and order.

This constant back and forth is pointless. Its stupid, and its not about 'evidence' is about a couple of straight up ding bats who think mutual law suits and press releases accomplish much of anything.

Well, if you are one side or the other, the other side is the devil.

Stupid. Ban the whole lot from cycling.

Amazing how fans react after their hero got stripped. now they want to burn it all down and make sure to throw those who sought the truth also burn for tearing down Armstrong.

Pathetic.

 

[Velodude]

The Federations and the teams are all part of of the UCI umbrella. The UCI is responsible for the anti-doping and administration of the sport by which the Federations and teams are governed by. The UCI has provided statements for the sponsorship agreements that the sport is run in a fair and equitable manner. If the UCI is working against a sponsor by protecting an athlete with rival sponsorship deals then its has broken the contract, the agreement and the law.

SKINS entered into cycling sponsorship deals in 2008.

Armstrong's cosy and protected arrangements with UCI were known and odious to arouse suspicion before that date.

His "donations" to UCI came out in the SCA hearing in 2006.

Verbruggen had admitted before 2008 Armstrong had been making substantial donations in cash.

The totally flawed Vrijman report commissioned by the UCI concerning scientific analysis of Armstrong's 1999 B samples for EPO was prematurely released via the back door in 2006 (allegedly to prevent UCI committee scrutiny).

There was sufficient suspicion for SKINS to be caveat emptor to be vigilant to the possibility of being involved supporting a corrupt sport.

Cycling is but one of ten sports sponsored by SKINS.

 

[JA.Tri]

"Death by a thousand cuts"

While UCI executive might be standing by "Nein and Fat" presently, I would guess the power brokers are continuing to assess the situation.

H and P may believe they "serve" the cycling fraternity, and will continue to exist in this deluded state, I suggest UCI pragmatists will be watching the trembling dominos.

Sufficient "legal noise" will, as others assert, result in UCI cutting H and P loose...to defend matters without UCI financial support. And shortly thereafter "gently persuading" H and P to "resign" all connections with UCI.

Hopefully this action does not occur before all the "noxious bacteria" are clearly identified, excoriated and banished.

 

[Ferminal]

Amazing how fans react after their hero got stripped. now they want to burn it all down and make sure to throw those who sought the truth also burn for tearing down Armstrong.

Pathetic.

Funny they never spoke up against the lawsuits used by McQuaid, Verbruggen, Armstrong to silence dissenters.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Given this is unlikely to go away any time soon, what are the chances that UCI are actually embarassing the other sports using Switzerland as a base, and even Switzerland itself?

Any possibility the Swiss do a NoTW number on the heads of the UCI for tainting their country's good name?

 

[D-Queued]

While UCI executive might be standing by "Nein and Fat" presently, I would guess the power brokers are continuing to assess the situation.

H and P may believe they "serve" the cycling fraternity, and will continue to exist in this deluded state, I suggest UCI pragmatists will be watching the trembling dominos.

Sufficient "legal noise" will, as others assert, result in UCI cutting H and P loose...to defend matters without UCI financial support. And shortly thereafter "gently persuading" H and P to "resign" all connections with UCI.

Hopefully this action does not occur before all the "noxious bacteria" are clearly identified, excoriated and banished.

Nein, Nein, Nein.

I like this! First I heard/read it.

Allow me the poetic license to string my two favorites together: Nein and Phat.

Perfect.

Dave.

 

[Tinman]

Given this is unlikely to go away any time soon, what are the chances that UCI are actually embarassing the other sports using Switzerland as a base, and even Switzerland itself?

Any possibility the Swiss do a NoTW number on the heads of the UCI for tainting their country's good name?

It's a good point. Similar to the occasional exposure/cutting loose of confidentiality for some small time financial trader or African dictator. A sacrifice for the bigger picture status quo.

 

[Tinman]

Article by Kimmage over the weekend to the Irish Independent.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling-race-of-truth-keeps-rolling-3281852.html

 

[Velodude]

Article by Kimmage over the weekend to the Irish Independent.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling-race-of-truth-keeps-rolling-3281852.html

Good article.

PK lets the cat out of the bag by informing it cost the Times over 500,000 GBP (about $800,000) in costs for the Armstrong defamation case.

That would be amount paid to Armstrong to settle + their own costs. That would be the amount they would be looking to recover from Armstrong in having the settlement/judgment set aside.

I expect that the Times lawyers would have already been in communication with Mr. Herman.

 

[Benotti69]

Good article.

PK lets the cat out of the bag by informing it cost the Times over 500,000 GBP (about $800,000) in costs for the Armstrong defamation case.

That would be amount paid to Armstrong to settle + their own costs. That would be the amount they would be looking to recover from Armstrong in having the settlement/judgment set aside.

I expect that the Times lawyers would have already been in communication with Mr. Herman.

the amount was released by others, Walsh included iirc.

 

[frenchfry]

Good article.

PK lets the cat out of the bag by informing it cost the Times over 500,000 GBP (about $800,000) in costs for the Armstrong defamation case.

That would be amount paid to Armstrong to settle + their own costs. That would be the amount they would be looking to recover from Armstrong in having the settlement/judgment set aside.

I expect that the Times lawyers would have already been in communication with Mr. Herman.

Somehow I think Mr Herman will be making less on the way down than he did on the way up.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Good article.

PK lets the cat out of the bag by informing it cost the Times over 500,000 GBP (about $800,000) in costs for the Armstrong defamation case.

That would be amount paid to Armstrong to settle + their own costs. That would be the amount they would be looking to recover from Armstrong in having the settlement/judgment set aside.

I expect that the Times lawyers would have already been in communication with Mr. Herman.

The first piece of paper that will get slid across the table with this or any 'settlement' discussion will be a robust Non Disclosure Agreement. That will be a non-negociable pre-condition to getting any money from Armstrong. If they want money and not a public vendetta, they will sign and take the cash and offer 'no comment' for the foreseeable future.
Otherwise they will go to trial to recover and that costs money and takes time.

My guess is they will all sign, get the cash they negociate, and clam up.

So no headline news on Armstrong settlements. (sadly)

 

[jackwolf]

The first piece of paper that will get slid across the table with this or any 'settlement' discussion will be a robust Non Disclosure Agreement. That will be a non-negociable pre-condition to getting any money from Armstrong. If they want money and not a public vendetta, they will sign and take the cash and offer 'no comment' for the foreseeable future.
Otherwise they will go to trial to recover and that costs money and takes time.

My guess is they will all sign, get the cash they negociate, and clam up.

So no headline news on Armstrong settlements. (sadly)

Depends on how badly Armstrong wants that non-disclosure agreement, how much he's willing to pay for it, and how much The Times think they can push it. From a game-theoretical point of view, there's no reason to believe they'll settle. Same thing goes for any other lawsuit.