landis sued by uci?

[Winterfold]

nice touch how both CN articles continue to reiterate Landis' claims.

This is a gift that will keep on giving. Just keep quoting the judgement and they have no comeback.

These people are running the sport we love and they are clearly complete morons.

 

[stainlessguy1]

This is merely a ploy to make Landis afraid to enter the country and participate in the process when the **** goes down.

Yes , i never though of it that way , but true , they probably dont even want him here .
But the UCI , have done this before , if everone reads the latest news on CN regarding the same attempt with Greg Lemond for what he had stated .
So in fact these misfits at the UCI , have done this type of thing before. It so points the finger in that direction: we are covering our collective butts quite literally and have been doing so for years .

 

[poupou]

When Lance had spoken about UCI corruption, that was probably on US soils, and as I recall, there were too an interview with german TV that could have been in Germany.

So why should Landis retract his words in L'Equipe, or on US media? Doesn't make any sense from my chair.

 

[thehog]

When Lance had spoken about UCI corruption, that was probably on US soils, and as I recall, there were too an interview with german TV that could have been in Germany.

So why should Landis retract his words in L'Equipe, or on US media? Doesn't make any sense from my chair.

The follow up article on CN in regards to LeMomd makes for interesting reading. Proves the are full of ***.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-failure-to-silence-lemond

Greg LeMond’s public retraction of his statements regarding UCI is something of value to UCI. Indeed, you would not have written your letter to Mr. LeMond and demanded the same unless it had value to your organization. Under United States’ law, threatening criminal prosecution in order to obtain “any money or other valuable thing” is a federal crime. See 18 U.S.C. 0 873. Violations of section 873 require a fine and imprisonment for not more than one year.”

 

[Robert21]

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

There is also the issue of the UCI not doing all they could to prevent doping in general.

One great example of this was the way the UCI demanded that Richard Virenque be allowed to ride the Tour, even though the ASO didn't want him in their race after the Festina scandal. Back in 1999 Jean-Marie Leblanc said that Virenque's presence is the Tour was "incompatible to the image and reputation of the event we want to preserve." When the UCI once again sided with the dopers and insisted that he be given a place Leblanc's response was "If Virenque won the Tour, it would be a very serious setback for our race".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/370588.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sport/tour_de_france/384014.stm

It was much the same story when the ASO wanted to exclude Astana from the Tour: the UCI took sides with the dopers.

 

[D-Queued]

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. 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.

11. UCI Chaperones providing advance notice of OOC ('surprise') tests, with notable preference to Lance/team

12. No fine/reprimand/punishment/consequence for threatening other riders (e.g. Filippo Simeoni)

*Willful misrepresentation of the number of tests - in the past month McQuaid announced 215 tests, while Hein continued the known lie of more than 500

...That, of course, makes Hein a liar!

** Willful misrepresentation of the amount and timing of the 'donation(s)', inadequate reporting of the donation(s), and no accounting/reconciliation of the 'use of proceeds'. All of which indicate serious breaches of fiduciary duty and may violate various accounting rules (not familiar enough with Swiss IFRS/GAAP).

...Not providing the correct amount of the 'donation', its true purpose or revealing how the funds were spent, of course, makes both Hein and Pat liars!

With respect to claiming that they are liars, it is of consequence that both of these subjects represent distortion (and evasion) of material facts. This differs from claiming that you were five minutes late, when you were really late by six minutes.

Dave.

 

[MarkvW]

Actually, what is YOUR point? The court said Floyd said those things...and Floyd has not disputed it. Is that not materially different from Armstrong "denying" that he doped by not contesting the charges against him?

The only material difference may be that Lance was properly noticed and fully able to defend while Floyd, apparently, was not properly noticed and might not have been able to afford a defense.

 

[python]

added dave's ##11 and 12 and #13 from myself. Robert21, i think you are correct, but we should focus on the uci special treatment of armstrong and his teams ONLY as that's what being the substance of 2 lawsuits.

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. 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.
11. UCI Chaperones providing advance notice of OOC ('surprise') tests, with notable preference to Lance/team
12. No fine/reprimand/punishment/consequence for threatening other riders (e.g. Filippo Simeoni)
13. Relentless suppression, litigation and dismissal of anyone questioning uci's lack of transparency wrt to special treatment of armstrong. examples: firing of sylvia schenk over questioning armstrong's payments, suing wada's dijk pound over his criticism of uci covering up 1999 epo positives

we need more and we need this spread all over the media and internet !

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Hi Vortex!

I just want you to know that I do occasionally read your posts. You are an easy mark. But, I am still on the wagon so to speak, so it is easy to resist lighting into your ***.

BTW, do you know where CN got the cool sexy brooding pic of FL on the front page? I can imagine all of the perspiration flowing from the clinic.

LOL

The picture is not quite as "used" looking as that picture Race posted of K. armstrong.

But I am sure it gets some mileage.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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.

Interesting.

So who whould have motive to set both Tyler and Floyd up?

For me going after the UCI with a "coordinated effort" is like people trying to "occupy wall street" or any other local park.

 

[D-Queued]

Interesting.

So who whould have motive to set both Tyler and Floyd up?

For me going after the UCI with a "coordinated effort" is like people trying to "occupy wall street" or any other local park.

Don't count me among the supporters, but if we were as effective as Occupy, it would be a form of victory.

Dave.

 

[Willy_Voet]

There is also the issue of the UCI not doing all they could to prevent doping in general.

One great example of this was the way the UCI demanded that Richard Virenque be allowed to ride the Tour, even though the ASO didn't want him in their race after the Festina scandal. Back in 1999 Jean-Marie Leblanc said that Virenque's presence is the Tour was "incompatible to the image and reputation of the event we want to preserve." When the UCI once again sided with the dopers and insisted that he be given a place Leblanc's response was "If Virenque won the Tour, it would be a very serious setback for our race".

I recall this fight and it had me poppin' mad at the time. This was one of the prime examples of UCI strong arm tactics to force their will on the cycling masses. I believe this was also reflective of their intentions to control more of the races, reorganize into the World Tour, etc.

The ASO has done more to fight doping and promote cycling around the world than the UCI. The UCI are a bunch of corrupt imbeciles.

 

[MarkvW]

I recall this fight and it had me poppin' mad at the time. This was one of the prime examples of UCI strong arm tactics to force their will on the cycling masses. I believe this was also reflective of their intentions to control more of the races, reorganize into the World Tour, etc.

The ASO has done more to fight doping and promote cycling around the world than the UCI. The UCI are a bunch of corrupt imbeciles.

I often think that the half-wits who manage the UCI unconsciously act to keep the sport small. As long as the sport is small, they can retain control and manage it as a petty fiefdom. If the sport were to really grow, the lumpen-stakeholders would get off their glutes and bring professional managers onboard.

 

[manafana]

UCI apparently said today that Landis's refusal to face the charges are admittance of guilt. Wonder what Lances refusal means in that case?

 

[Merckx index]

I think we should take this a step further, and use Python’s list and other info to rebut each of the charges against Floyd. Here is a list of the things he isn’t supposed to say, because they are allegedly false. I have eliminated the reference to terrorists and Gaddafi, which are obviously over the top, and also terms like “clown” and “full of ****”, which are a matter of opinion, and obviously should not be relevant to any question of libel. What is left are allegations of acts that lend themselves to material evidence:

1) have concealed cases of doping,
2) have received money for doing so,
3) have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case,
4) have protected certain racing cyclists,
5) have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races,
6) have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador,
7) have accepted bribes,
8) are corrupt,
9) do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling,
10) are liars

I suggest we post a detailed, point-by-point list of all the evidence that supports these charges, sign it, and invite McQ/Ver to sue us as well. If they actually did, I’m sure that by chipping in, we could afford a lawyer to defend us. Or we might just hand over the list to Kimmage’s attorney. The Kimmage defense will surely hinge on much of this, anyway. But I would like to see a specific, point-by-point rebuttal of UCI in the public domain before the Kimmage hearing.

 

[Willy_Voet]

UCI apparently said today that Landis's refusal to face the charges are admittance of guilt. Wonder what Lances refusal means in that case?

Stop trying to apply logic to Lance's case or draw parallels of any sort. You'll find yourself in a futile, multipage trollfest.

 

[GeeMan]

The Landis ruling in the Swiss Courts has a few days until his opportunity to appeal is gone.

His lawyer has now acknowledged the case was heard and judgement passed and he now has the opportunity to appeal and pleading ignorance or sitting still and complaining won’t make it go away it will simply pass into law as a conviction and Landis has no option other than to comply.
If it's not as legal as his lawyers are saying then they should appeal.

If he doesn’t comply I cannot see a Swiss Court sitting back and accepting it in the same way any other Court wont. Additionally if he has provided testimony used in the USADA/LA case he may have to retract that also or face further action, possibly USADA will have to remove it also, regardless of FL actions, as a Court ruling under the Code is deemed accepted and repeating this will place in the same position as L'Equipe are, heading to court, for printing the story in the first place.
I dont think USADA leaving it in the 'File' would be wise when they are sending it to Switzerland where a Court has already ruled on it and in the hands of enemy No1 UCI! It may however cause one or two at UCI to have a heart atack reading it.

It's at times like this we all see why organisations like UCI and FIFA etc. decide to set up their HQ in Switzerland!

I hope he doesn’t comply and we get to see where it goes.

Regardless of any comments by me or anyone else it is still one of the funniest things I have read in a long time, comedy gold.

 

[MarkvW]

. . . I suggest we post a detailed, point-by-point list of all the evidence that supports these charges, sign it, and invite McQ/Ver to sue us as well.. If they actually did, I’m sure that by chipping in, we could afford a lawyer to defend us. Or we might just hand over the list to Kimmage’s attorney. The Kimmage defense will surely hinge on much of this, anyway. . . .

(Emphasis added).

My wife would just love to see me baiting a couple of litigious old jerks into suing us.

Anybody who retains their UCI license after this supports the UCI's attack on Kimmage. Money talks, BS walks. Don't say you "have to" support the UCI because you "need to" in order to race. That's just you and your own personal omerta problem.

 

[ToreBear]

Everybody knew what was going on for years. But the arguments they made against the test made it clear they didn't really want to catch athletes. It's always going to be the same if your responsibility is to both promote a sport and be a watchdog."

- Professor Guy Brisson, Toronto Star 1998

Q Signor Donati, why have you chosen to denounce doping in cycling?

A Because it is currently the sport that is most menaced by it and is the field for scandalous experimentation by doctors and researchers. The interests that have grafted themselves onto the trade are enormous, and a whole herd of traffickers revolves around it. In six months last year, a pharmacy in the province of Pisa sold EPO worth more than 150 million lira [US$97,000]. But that's nothing to the shambles and corruption that's in place today. Take note that it suffices for some famous riders who've given an enormous sample of testosterone at the drug control to present it to a lab approved by the UCI where they'll get a medical certificate that absolves them.

- Sandro Donati 1997

This was found through here:
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/2/16...on-the-causes-of-doping-francesco-conconi-and

The Donati qoute was found in a link from the above article here:
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/archives/jan97/doping.html

I'm reading the podiumcafe articles and they are interesting reading. However I don't take the references to other sports and deaths to epo seriously, since I have not found any facts that support those assertions to date.

My guess is that facts not relating to cycling are not really checked with as much veracity compared to facts relating to cycling.

The cyclingnews article mentions:

November 19: Giacomo Costa, a doctor and the president of CONI for the province of Trento says that a world-class woman skier has died because of EPO use. (It turns out to have been Manuela Di Centa, who won five gold medals at Lillehammer).

She won 2 golds at lillehammer, but thats beside the point. She is very much alive and kicking!

Annyway the articles by fmk I have read are excellent reading, and to my mind shows that Verbruggens behavior and statements over time were very much consistent with not being interested in clean sport.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

The Landis ruling in the Swiss Courts has a few days until his opportunity to appeal is gone.

His lawyer has now acknowledged the case was heard and judgement passed and he now has the opportunity to appeal and pleading ignorance or sitting still and complaining won’t make it go away it will simply pass into law as a conviction and Landis has no option other than to comply.
If it's not as legal as his lawyers are saying then they should appeal.

If he doesn’t comply I cannot see a Swiss Court sitting back and accepting it in the same way any other Court wont. Additionally if he has provided testimony used in the USADA/LA case he may have to retract that also or face further action, possibly USADA will have to remove it also, regardless of FL actions, as a Court ruling under the Code is deemed accepted and repeating this will place in the same position as L'Equipe are, heading to court, for printing the story in the first place.
I dont think USADA leaving it in the 'File' would be wise when they are sending it to Switzerland where a Court has already ruled on it and in the hands of enemy No1 UCI! It may however cause one or two at UCI to have a heart atack reading it.

It's at times like this we all see why organisations like UCI and FIFA etc. decide to set up their HQ in Switzerland!

I hope he doesn’t comply and we get to see where it goes.

Regardless of any comments by me or anyone else it is still one of the funniest things I have read in a long time, comedy gold.

This is so ignorant, I don't know where to begin...so I won't.

 

[GeeMan]

This is so ignorant, I don't know where to begin...so I won't.

Why dont you try and not come across as being either lazy or ignorant yourself?

Is it an abuse forum or to share?

 

[Kender]

FL's lawyer makes statements for dupes like you.

You think even if he was served (assuming it did not happen) that he would have shown up and defended himself from these outrageous charges?

Oh he knew about the case for sure... i said his lawyers claimed he wasn't legally informed. there is a difference

and no i dont think he'd have bothered showing up because the case is rediculous

 

[python]

Oh he knew about the case for sure... i said his lawyers claimed he wasn't legally informed. there is a difference

and no i dont think he'd have bothered showing up because the case is rediculous

you don't need to take seriously a well known armstrong apologist who insulted your rather informed view and you personally as a 'dupe'. In stead read several posts above as to what motivated his jumping in - spite and anger. Cheers.

 

[fatandfast]

Oh he knew about the case for sure... i said his lawyers claimed he wasn't legally informed. there is a difference

and no i dont think he'd have bothered showing up because the case is rediculous

There is a entire sub culture that subscribes to this, the case was ridiculous so I didn't show.
This is the same logic that told Landis to write a book,give 1000s of interviews and accept money from people face to face knowing he was f@cking lying to their . He was still never legally informed that was wrong either. He has taken enough goodwill out of the system,now he may need to put some in. At this point the fact that Landis is still in need of lawyers means he is still doping. Landis stop talking about dope,Lance or the UCI. Even if everything you say from today on is absolutely true it will still smell like $hit as you breath out. Repay the money punk!!
Let me guess,getting convicted in Switzerland will make that easier..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_-LvMtgnw&feature=related

 

[thehog]

Why dont you try and not come across as being either lazy or ignorant yourself?

Is it an abuse forum or to share?

Calm down rookie. Earn your stripes first.