landis sued by uci?

[Tubeless]

No no. I completely understand the clinic position and I am on board. I am on the clinic logic train, toot toot!

FFFL chooses not to fight the UCI? FFFL good, UCI bad.

LA chooses not to fight USADA? LA bad, USADA good.

Makes perfect sense.

If that is all the logic you apply, then you've got a case. But when you add the substance of the allegations, the relevant evidence, and the background motivations, you get an entirely different conclusion.

LA is accused of a doping conspiracy. Too many witnesses and evidence to contest. He's guilty as charged.

FL is accused of defaming the esteemed UCI presidents. Defaming is saying nasty things about another person that aren't true. But there's the catch - much of what FL said is factually correct and supported by evidence.

The funny thing is that the USADA "reasoned decision" file about LA, when released, would probably be sufficient to exonerate FL. Pat will be in receipt of that document next week. The question is - will Pat share the details with the court that just ruled in his favor? Even if he does not, the details will be released in other ways - will the court then reconsider its ruling given the new information?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Can you please stop following me around trying to derail threads with your personnal vendetta? You saw what red wrote on the other thread, so why you antagonize the mod team is not quite clear. You live on the edge.

The internet is a vast marketplace of ideas, and you should be thankful that you can participate. This is not about my morals...it is about the clinic's with its selective application of its morals. I have not given my opinion on this issue in terms of its merits, though I am sure you are waiting so you can confirm what you learned in class this morning.

I asked a reasonable question to someone with no moral compass. I note you didn't answer. I think we both know that your position shifts with whatever petty intertubes point you need to make, or score you need to settle.

 

[ChrisE]

LA is accused of a doping conspiracy. Too many witnesses and evidence to contest. He's guilty as charged.

FL is accused of defaming the esteemed UCI presidents. Defaming is saying nasty things about another person that aren't true. But there's the catch - much of what FL said is factually correct and supported by evidence.

Yes of course! The evidence for FL and against LA is overwheliming! I agree! Yet the clinic has two separate methods of reaching this conclusion.

Why didn't he show up and defend himself, backed up by all of this evidence? We all could finally praise the day when the UCI is whacked at the knees by our hero rising from the ashes.

Now we have to wait for Kimmage and his sock full of contributions to bring this bribing evidence, and all of the other evidence to back up all of the derogatory statements by FL, to the court in a wheelbarrow. Maybe he should rent a uhaul instead.

It's really that simple....the evidence is overwhelming that the UCI is all of these things, yet FL passed up the opportunity to prove it with all of this evidence. It's enough to make one go mad, I tell you.

I am really disappointed that the clinic is not down on FL at this time, wasting this unique opportunity.

 

[D-Queued]

I know that someone else also complimented CN for their excellent coverage of this story - my apologies for not quoting that post.

BUT, I would like to sincerely thank the staff at CN for their superb coverage of this story. Not one, but two articles. Both of which are exemplary in their word-for-word citations of the those items that Floyd is not allowed to speak.

It is also helpful to have the correct name for Henricus spelled out for the reader. Hopefully this trend continues when it comes to ongoing actions against one Lance Gunderson.

It is quite a list, and it does help to have such attention to detail from the cycling press.

Article two of the verdict goes into quite specific detail as to what Landis is not allowed to say about the UCI in the future, noting that it is forbidden for him to say that the UCI, McQuaid and Verbruggen “have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, or to make any similar other allegations of that kind.”

With such a stern judgement against saying all of those things, we really need to let everyone know what they should not be saying.

Dave.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Yes of course! The evidence for FL and against LA is overwheliming! I agree! Yet the clinic has two separate methods of reaching this conclusion.

Why didn't he show up and defend himself, backed up by all of this evidence? We all could finally praise the day when the UCI is whacked at the knees by our hero rising from the ashes.

Now we have to wait for Kimmage and his sock full of contributions to bring this bribing evidence, and all of the other evidence to back up all of the derogatory statements by FL, to the court in a wheelbarrow. Maybe he should rent a uhaul instead.

It's really that simple....the evidence is overwhelming that the UCI is all of these things, yet FL passed up the opportunity to prove it with all of this evidence. It's enough to make one go mad, I tell you.

I am really disappointed that the clinic is not down on FL at this time, wasting this unique opportunity.

Even Polish is a Floyd lover

 

[D-Queued]

...

Article two of the verdict goes into quite specific detail as to what Landis is not allowed to say about the UCI in the future, noting that it is forbidden for him to say that the UCI, McQuaid and Verbruggen “have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, or to make any similar other allegations of that kind.”

....

Never was it so much fun to quote myself, quoting someone else.

Question:

Can we ask the UCI to place this list of things we cannot say on our licenses next year?

You know, in place of the unenforced nonsense about willingness to subject to doping tests?

All UCI licensed riders should get their priorities straight.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

Even Polish is a Floyd lover

Chris is an angry man. He doesn't like Floyd because Floyd blew up the fantasy that was Armstrong.

Be nice if Chris could stick around and contribute on a regular basis. But he won't. He jumps in when he thinks he has a point scoring opportunity.

Sad. Very sad. And a very angry man.

 

[Tubeless]

Yes of course! The evidence for FL and against LA is overwheliming! I agree! Yet the clinic has two separate methods of reaching this conclusion.

Why didn't he show up and defend himself, backed up by all of this evidence? We all could finally praise the day when the UCI is whacked at the knees by our hero rising from the ashes.

Now we have to wait for Kimmage and his sock full of contributions to bring this bribing evidence, and all of the other evidence to back up all of the derogatory statements by FL, to the court in a wheelbarrow. Maybe he should rent a uhaul instead.

It's really that simple....the evidence is overwhelming that the UCI is all of these things, yet FL passed up the opportunity to prove it with all of this evidence. It's enough to make one go mad, I tell you.

I am really disappointed that the clinic is not down on FL at this time, wasting this unique opportunity.

A history lesson for you. The defamation case was filed on April 29, 2011. Back then there was only FL's word about the corruption and doping cover-ups by Pat & Hein.

Fast-forward to today. There's the USADA evidence, to be released next week which includes Tyler's corroboration of what FL said - and we've already read from his book. There's the USADA interview of the Lausanne lab director. Probably lots of other evidence about UCI corruption we've yet to hear about. Why aren't Pat & Hein suing Tyler?

FL did not have this information to present to the court. But he was not defaming, as telling the truth cannot be defamation. These silly defamation suits UCI has entered into to try to save its honor and reputation is probably why Pat has been acting so irrationally lately as it could all come crashing down for him.

Ever heard of the saying that "you better not throw stones if you live in a glass house"?

 

[Tinman]

Can we ask the UCI to place this list of things we cannot say on our licenses next year?

You know, in place of the unenforced nonsense about willingness to subject to doping tests?

Dave.

I saw someone put it in their clinic signature. It's a start...

 

[thehog]

I still don't get what your point is.

Floyd had a chance to defend himself and didn't. Armstrong had a chance to defend himself and didn't.

Floyd has never denied saying what he said. Armstrong has vehemently denied doping.

If you're equating failing to fight a court case with lying, you're not doing a very good job at present.

More to the point Armstromg not only avoided defending himself but attempted to thwart the process by taking out a Federal claim. He lost that case.

Then quit. Like a loser.

Vastly different to the Landis situation.

 

[MarkvW]

More to the point Armstromg not only avoided defending himself but attempted to thwart the process by taking out a Federal claim. He lost that case.

Then quit. Like a loser.

Vastly different to the Landis situation.

Hoggy, you just don't want to make that comparison.

Lance legally tried to thwart the process and then quit like a loser. Floyd participated in the process, tried to intimidate witnesses (LeMond), and then perjured his rear off. Landis then kept the lie going for years, and when all hope of a cycling career was trashed (and he couldn't be prosecuted for perjury because of the SOL), turned snitch.

The "Saint Floyd Myth" just doesn't wash.

 

[thehog]

Hoggy, you just don't want to make that comparison.

Lance legally tried to thwart the process and then quit like a loser. Floyd participated in the process, tried to intimidate witnesses (LeMond), and then perjured his rear off. Landis then kept the lie going for years, and when all hope of a cycling career was trashed (and he couldn't be prosecuted for perjury because of the SOL), turned snitch.

The "Saint Floyd Myth" just doesn't wash.

Nah that's just Mark being Mark.

Nothing like it.

Lance is still lying. Still covering up.

 

[MarkvW]

Nah that's just Mark being Mark.

Nothing like it.

Lance is still lying. Still covering up.

And Floyd is still telling the truth about the testosterone that got him kicked out of the Tour?

In mob terms, Lance was Gotti and Floyd was Sammy the Bull.

 

[Tubeless]

And Floyd is still telling the truth about the testosterone that got him kicked out of the Tour?

After reading Tyler's book, one plausible theory is that Floyd got a blood transfusion before his comeback stage - and that Floyd has been "glowing" with testosterone when that blood bag was collected. He would have not known that, got busted - and reacted accordingly.

Tyler's book does not answer conclusively either why he was caught for homologous transfusion - Dr Asheden offered an explanation of a possible mix-up of two riders' blood during the freezing operation.

Same with Contador - a likely case of traces of Clenbutarol left in the body when a blood bag was taken for storage. He would have been completely unaware and thus acted "surprised".

 

[thehog]

The comments section on the VeloNews article is telling.

People with REAL names are jack of the UCI and don't believe in any of the BS the sell.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...ment-in-defamation-case-against-landis_248019

 

[Cloxxki]

After reading Tyler's book, one plausible theory is that Floyd got a blood transfusion before his comeback stage - and that Floyd has been "glowing" with testosterone when that blood bag was collected. He would have not known that, got busted - and reacted accordingly.

Tyler's book does not answer conclusively either why he was caught for homologous transfusion - Dr Asheden offered an explanation of a possible mix-up of two riders' blood during the freezing operation.

Same with Contador - a likely case of traces of Clenbutarol left in the body when a blood bag was taken for storage. He would have been completely unaware and thus acted "surprised".

I would want to know more about who had access to both TH's and FL's blood bags. Likely totally seperate cases, but still. Didn't FL's people have diverse alliances? How hard is it really to taint a bag with testosterone? I don't see a motive for FL to lie about willingly taking testosterone in that season, in any shape or form.

I, too, would appreciate a coordinated effort to respond to the Swiss case, as active and former UCI members. I raced for over a decade myself, was deprived of results due to covering up of doping. The let me pay for governance which was untrue, over races that were not fair from the moment dopers were allowed to enter. Many of us who race have valid complaints with the UCI.

 

[frenchfry]

He could have shown up and proved what he said was right.

For example, he could have provided evidence that the human rights attrocities, and other such acts such as sponsoring people that crash airlines, atributed to Qadaffi were on par with doping in bike races.

Heck, after that proving that LA paid off the UCI would be a piece of cake.

You do believe that, right? After all, there is a whole thread started on that subject alone by the clinic liar so why not put the cards on the table?

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away French Fry wrote something on DPF that I never will forget. When FL dropped his appeals and settled, FF wrote to his supporters that just knew he would win that it was like quitting the TdF while on the last lap of the Champs in yellow.

FL had a chance to prove all of these things and he dropped out on the last lap in yellow. What a shame.

I indeed have numerous fans.

I too thought of the apparent hypocrisy when comparing the UCI/Floyd case to USADA/Lancey-poo case, but a quick look at the obvious differences suggests that we can't really compare. I am not very subjective on this though.

 

[Tubeless]

I would want to know more about who had access to both TH's and FL's blood bags. Likely totally seperate cases, but still. Didn't FL's people have diverse alliances? How hard is it really to taint a bag with testosterone? I don't see a motive for FL to lie about willingly taking testosterone in that season, in any shape or form.

I, too, would appreciate a coordinated effort to respond to the Swiss case, as active and former UCI members. I raced for over a decade myself, was deprived of results due to covering up of doping. The let me pay for governance which was untrue, over races that were not fair from the moment dopers were allowed to enter. Many of us who race have valid complaints with the UCI.

In Tyler's case, the theory offered by Dr Ashenden was related to the complexity of freezing blood for long term storage (where glycol has to be mixed with blood a bit at a time). When this process is performed for multiple blood bags from different riders at the same time, a careless operator can make a mistake and mix up traces of blood from two blood bags. Tyler had gotten a bad blood bag earlier in the season so there was a precedent of Fuente's lab not being top notch.

Contador's case is likely a simple professional miscalculation. After taking Clenbuterol and then waiting long enough for the hormone to clear his system, a friendly lab tested his blood to make sure it was all gone and then took out a bag of blood for storage. When he received this bag of blood on the 2nd rest day at TdF, the German lab testing TdF samples had much more sensitive equipment than the Contador's private lab in Spain and still found trace amounts of Clenbuterol left.

One theoretical possibility in Floyd's case is that he was given a testosterone pill instead of HgH (or something else) before he withdrew a blood bag for TdF - a doctor's mistake. It's hard to see any of these riders being the target of professional sabotage. Most of the doping positives seem to be miscalculations or mistakes by the few doping doctors and their assistants who obviously served a large pool of riders as customers. Dr Ferrari charged a huge fee for the specific reason that he wanted to focus only on a few top riders - and serve them well. Even he miscalculated at least once - the 2001 TdS EPO positive for LA was not supposed to have happened, according to Dr Ferrari's calculations (as reported in Tyler's book).

 

[rhubroma]

Yes of course! The evidence for FL and against LA is overwheliming! I agree! Yet the clinic has two separate methods of reaching this conclusion.

Why didn't he show up and defend himself, backed up by all of this evidence? We all could finally praise the day when the UCI is whacked at the knees by our hero rising from the ashes.

Now we have to wait for Kimmage and his sock full of contributions to bring this bribing evidence, and all of the other evidence to back up all of the derogatory statements by FL, to the court in a wheelbarrow. Maybe he should rent a uhaul instead.

It's really that simple....the evidence is overwhelming that the UCI is all of these things, yet FL passed up the opportunity to prove it with all of this evidence. It's enough to make one go mad, I tell you.

I am really disappointed that the clinic is not down on FL at this time, wasting this unique opportunity.

Or, perhaps FL was told by USADA not to contest! Ahh!! Great Scott, I think he's got something there!!! Ha, ha!

Perhaps this was because they, USADA, are the bearers of all the corroborating evidence that irrefutably confirms that which he, Floyd Landis, said was absolutely correct and true! And thus Floyd needed to take "the fall" to make the UCI look even worse and more hypocritical when USADA presents there indictment against them and LA next week.

Perhaps this is all something done in the greater scheme of things, as they say. To make the farce become the sensational performance, perhaps the greatest one we have ever seen, an earth shattering revelation!

We anxiously await the outcome sometime next week...

 

[python]

let's put aside floyd's doping case and the apologetic nonsense. there are plenty of other threads for that. let's concentrate on the issue at hand.

what is the objective evidence the uci provided differential treatment to armstrong with respect to doping ?

after all, that's the very substance of the thread and the coming law suit against kimmage...just a quick walk through my memory lane:

1. Contrary to overwhelming evidence, the president of the UCI stated in black and white, 'he never,never doped'. this is in public records
2. contrary to uci statements, the lausanne lab director confirmed to usada, uci arranging secret meetings following armstrong's tds epo 'suspicious'. this is in public records
3. contrary to uci statements, the uci did attempt to white wash armstrong's 6 epo positives with vrijman report. this is in public records.
4. contrary to uci statements, there are at least several other witnesses confirming floyd's story that armstrong bragged about his influence with the uci.
5. contrary to every other known incidence, armstrong remains the only rider paying uci.
6. contrary to other known examples, armstrong - a confirmed doping cyclist - used his influence with the uci to rat on the riders about their doping ('the spaniards on new shyt', 'tyler not normal')
.............

if i forgot something, please add.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

Python, what about Armstrong not being available for testing for 6months prior to his return to competition?

 

[python]

Python, what about Armstrong not being available for testing for 6months prior to his return to competition?

aha, good ! let's make it #7. i now recall it, the uci granted him the right to compete in the ozzy tour, despite their own rules. (a small caviat, iirc, they've done the same for other cyclists...an italian, his name escapes me now, ale jet ?)

and i just recalled the oldest, the most factually confirmed:

#8. the backdated corticoid prescription following a positive test.

 

[TexPat]

aha, good ! let's make it #7. i now recall it, the uci granted him athe right to compete in the ozzy tour, despite their own ruless. (a small caviat, iirc, they've done the same for other cyclists...an italian, his name escapes me now, ale jet ?)

and i just recalled the oldest, the most factually confirmed:

#8. the backdated corticoid prescription following a positive test.

Wouldn't do it for Cipollini as I recall.

 

[python]

Wouldn't do it for Cipollini as I recall.

what a surprise but let's continue with the list, perhaps kimmage wants us

1. Contrary to overwhelming evidence, the president of the UCI stated in black and white, 'he never,never doped'. this is in public records
2. contrary to uci statements, the lausanne lab director confirmed to usada, uci arranging secret meetings following armstrong's tds epo 'suspicious'. this is in public records
3. contrary to uci statements, the uci did attempt to white wash armstrong's 6 epo positives with vrijman report. this is in public records.
4. contrary to uci statements, there are at least several other witnesses confirming floyd's story that armstrong bragged about his influence with the uci.
5. contrary to every other known incidence, armstrong remains the only rider paying uci.
6. contrary to other known examples, armstrong - a confirmed doping cyclist - used his influence with the uci to rat on the riders about their doping ('the spaniards on new shyt', 'tyler not normal')
7. UCI granting armstrong the license up on 2nd coming BEFORE the required 6 months of dope testing expired
8. the back dated corticosteroid prescription approved by the uci following a positive test
9. Repeated attempts to interfere in federal courts into USADA case against armstrong doping
10 ????

 

[python]

1. Contrary to overwhelming evidence, the president of the UCI stated in black and white, 'he never,never doped'. this is in public records
2. contrary to uci statements, the lausanne lab director confirmed to usada, uci arranging secret meetings following armstrong's tds epo 'suspicious'. this is in public records
3. contrary to uci statements, the uci did attempt to white wash armstrong's 6 epo positives with vrijman report. this is in public records.
4. contrary to uci statements, there are at least several other witnesses confirming floyd's story that armstrong bragged about his influence with the uci.
5. contrary to every other known incidence, armstrong remains the only rider paying uci.
6. contrary to other known examples, armstrong - a confirmed doping cyclist - used his influence with the uci to rat on the riders about their doping ('the spaniards on new shyt', 'tyler not normal')
7. UCI granting armstrong the license up on 2nd coming BEFORE the required 6 months of dope testing expired
8. the back dated corticosteroid prescription approved by the uci following a positive test
9. Repeated attempts to interfere in federal courts into USADA case against armstrong doping
10 ????

Just came up with the well documented #10

#10. UCI's persistent refusal to submit to usada some data regarding suspicious armstrong doping tests. this is in usada letters to uci and is part of the federal court proceedings.