McQuaid to sue Kimmage? for €6000!

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
***
Looks like money making opportunities are drying up in the cycling world. Bleed that one dry. Let’s move onto something else.

- -
Mobli, a video sharing website, can add Lance Armstrong to its list of celebrity endorsers today. The famed cyclist is joining the company’s board and starting his own Mobli channel.

Mobli’s goal is to show you life through another person’s eyes. It does this by allowing people to set up channels, similar to YouTube, where they can post pictures and video, as well as search for image-based content through certain verticals. These verticals include food, music, fashion, cars, sports, and more. Its other purpose is to allow people access to a person who is usually inaccessible, such as celebrities and political figures. You know the behind the scenes interviews that make channels like E! so popular? Mobli is similar, only the content comes directly from the celebrity.

Celebrities have seemingly taken to Mobli. In October, the company added Leonardo DiCaprio as an investor and advisor, now Armstrong is on its board, and others such as Paris Hilton, David Arquette, and Jaime King have channels.

“When I was first introduced to Mobli, I immediately thought it was an extraordinary platform and an innovative yet accessible way for different audiences to share their stories,” said Armstrong in a statement. “I’m excited to use Mobli as a direct channel for my social media followers to get a personal look at my experiences day to day.”

http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/30/lance-armstrong-mobli/
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
thehog said:
Looks like money making opportunities are drying up in the cycling world. Bleed that one dry. Let’s move onto something else.

- -
Mobli, a video sharing website, can add Lance Armstrong to its list of celebrity endorsers today. The famed cyclist is joining the company’s board and starting his own Mobli channel.

Mobli’s goal is to show you life through another person’s eyes. It does this by allowing people to set up channels, similar to YouTube, where they can post pictures and video, as well as search for image-based content through certain verticals. These verticals include food, music, fashion, cars, sports, and more. Its other purpose is to allow people access to a person who is usually inaccessible, such as celebrities and political figures. You know the behind the scenes interviews that make channels like E! so popular? Mobli is similar, only the content comes directly from the celebrity.

Celebrities have seemingly taken to Mobli. In October, the company added Leonardo DiCaprio as an investor and advisor, now Armstrong is on its board, and others such as Paris Hilton, David Arquette, and Jaime King have channels.

“When I was first introduced to Mobli, I immediately thought it was an extraordinary platform and an innovative yet accessible way for different audiences to share their stories,” said Armstrong in a statement. “I’m excited to use Mobli as a direct channel for my social media followers to get a personal look at my experiences day to day.”

http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/30/lance-armstrong-mobli/
Wonder does he have waterproof housing on his camera for the shower scenes
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Well, could you clarify exactly what you meant?
As when I read your post that is what I assume you meant - and I do not think Benotti put "words in your mouth".

I though their question was accurate.
To paraphrase;

1) UCI are not corrupt
2) Kimmage may have no defence he could take to court

MarkvW did not state that UCI were not corrupt, he stated that Kimmage may have no legal defence, there is a difference of meaning between those two statements. Assuming they are the same is quite the leap of logic.

MarkvW said:
There is also the possibility that Kimmage is not defending because he has no defense and that he can't back up his statements. Perhaps it is a combination of the two.
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage has no defense, WTF are you talking about??
UCI are not corrupt?? You reall believe that BS, or are you speaking again from your yellow corner?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
function said:
To paraphrase;

1) UCI are not corrupt
2) Kimmage may have no defence he could take to court

MarkvW did not state that UCI were not corrupt, he stated that Kimmage may have no legal defence, there is a difference of meaning between those two statements. Assuming they are the same is quite the leap of logic.
Kimmage's defense is the same as Landis.

UCI are blowing smoke and mirrors to detract from the real crux of the issue.

Corruptness of McQuaid and Verbruggen.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
There has been a pattern with the UCI over the last decade. When stuck in a no-win situation they make a brash move that makes no sense. The power grab for TV rights that was the Pro Tour, the fights with the ASO, RCS, and FFC, Time after time we have seen them make needlessly aggressive and questionable moves that prove to be tactically clueless....this lawsuit against Kimmage is just another example
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
function said:
To paraphrase;

1) UCI are not corrupt
2) Kimmage may have no defence he could take to court

MarkvW did not state that UCI were not corrupt, he stated that Kimmage may have no legal defence, there is a difference of meaning between those two statements. Assuming they are the same is quite the leap of logic.
I was thinking of Lord Archer's libel case when I made that post!
 
Mar 22, 2011
368
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage's defense is the same as Landis.

UCI are blowing smoke and mirrors to detract from the real crux of the issue.

Corruptness of McQuaid and Verbruggen.
It was not stated that the UCI were not corrupt so there is no need to reiterate.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
function said:
Not at all, i don't understand why you keep harping on about it though as no one has argued otherwise.
Because it cannot be stated enough that this fantastic sport is led by a corrupt federation.
 
Benotti69 said:
Because it cannot be stated enough that this fantastic sport is led by a corrupt federation.
The problem is proving it. How does one actually show that the UCI are materially corrupt?

If you look at Enron it was still very hard to prove fraud. When you have auditors, lawyers the bankers all signing off on the numbers and its within the rules then it’s difficult to prove otherwise.

The UCI is audited by EY and they release a full report each year into all aspects of the organization.

I’m with you. The UCI has been corrupt. For the most part still is. But rather than be out right criminal they tend to “lean” on facets within their world. i.e. they will lean on a team not to hire a certain rider. They will request more and more paperwork so a team won’t get a ProTour license. They run the dope testing and because they do can provide insider information to certain teams etc.

It’s tough corruption to prove. It’s there but getting access to documents and having people go on the record it a bigger enough job for a lawyer let alone an Irish plumber! Being a Swiss based organization makes in neigh impossible for any records to be uncovered. Besides what laws have been broken here? I don’t think any. The donation is hardly the basis for criminal action. The UCi are with their right to spend the money however they please.

I don’t like it but it’s the world we live in. Our only real hope is a breakaway league but again I can see the UCI applying a lot of pressure for this not to happen.

Alas it’s a strange suit. The burden is open the UCI to prove that they’ve been “damaged” to the tune of 6000e’s. I don’t think they can do that but I don’t think it’s the intention to bring this to court. The intention is to tie up Kimmage and silence him. It’s a small world the cycling press. Perhaps they want to stop any other publication from hiring him with this hanging over his head?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
thehog said:
The problem is proving it. How does one actually show that the UCI are materially corrupt?
(...)
has been proven already. they accepted a donation from a guy they were supposed to police.
I think in a normal world under normal laws that would be seen as corrupt, only for the swiss to make certain exceptions to those rules.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
thehog said:
The problem is proving it. How does one actually show that the UCI are materially corrupt?

If you look at Enron it was still very hard to prove fraud. When you have auditors, lawyers the bankers all signing off on the numbers and its within the rules then it’s difficult to prove otherwise.

The UCI is audited by EY and they release a full report each year into all aspects of the organization.

I’m with you. The UCI has been corrupt. For the most part still is. But rather than be out right criminal they tend to “lean” on facets within their world. i.e. they will lean on a team not to hire a certain rider. They will request more and more paperwork so a team won’t get a ProTour license. They run the dope testing and because they do can provide insider information to certain teams etc.

It’s tough corruption to prove. It’s there but getting access to documents and having people go on the record it a bigger enough job for a lawyer let alone an Irish plumber! Being a Swiss based organization makes in neigh impossible for any records to be uncovered. Besides what laws have been broken here? I don’t think any. The donation is hardly the basis for criminal action. The UCi are with their right to spend the money however they please.

I don’t like it but it’s the world we live in. Our only real hope is a breakaway league but again I can see the UCI applying a lot of pressure for this not to happen.

Alas it’s a strange suit. The burden is open the UCI to prove that they’ve been “damaged” to the tune of 6000e’s. I don’t think they can do that but I don’t think it’s the intention to bring this to court. The intention is to tie up Kimmage and silence him. It’s a small world the cycling press. Perhaps they want to stop any other publication from hiring him with this hanging over his head?
perhaps the problem is the swiss law? I guess accepting donations from a guy you're supposed to police is considered 'corrupt' in most legal systems except the swiss.
 
sniper said:
perhaps the problem is the swiss law? I guess accepting donations from a guy you're supposed to police is considered 'corrupt' in most legal systems except the swiss.
I’m with you. I know it was corrupt but…. where does the law (UCI law or otherwise) say you can’t donate? People donate to the Police force, people donate to political parties etc. It’s not unusual. We all know there was an ulterior motive behind the donation but I don’t know how one proves that there was something else behind it.

This is why the Feds have a tough case. I think once they prove the doping then the donation looks more and more strange. Why donate for the fight against doping when you’re on a full Ferrari program?

Perhaps if Kimmage got his day I court these questions could be answered but McQuaid for the moment can control the output. We bought a Sysmex machine to fight doping – that is all.
 
Oct 1, 2010
41
0
0
This lawsuit is the legal equivalent of a joke. Anyone can see the ridiculousness of bringing a defemation suit against claims made in an english paper by an irish journalist for a swiss court. A case wich quite obviously falls outside a swiss courts jurisdiction. The right thing to do would be to launch this case in the country the paper wich published the alleged defamatory claims were published. But that would mean the UCI/Verbruggen/McQuaid actually thought they hade a case.

The whole point of this lawsuit is to create headlines and make the impression that Kimmages allegations has been concluded, in a fair and legal trial, to be defamatory and should be treated as such when in fact the trial will be a onesided summmation by the accusing party as Kimmage has no reason to accept or be party to a case in these matters brought before a swiss court. More smoke and screens than anything. If you're a cynic a missuse of power by the UCI or if you have a sense of humour a bit of a joke.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Because it cannot be stated enough that this fantastic sport is led by a corrupt federation.
Benotti69, you get traction if you use the descriptive "alleged" :)

Like the UCI are an alleged corrupt organization as they have entered into alleged corruptive practices in the past exemplified by:

1. Commissioning and issuing a totally flawed report in 2006 by Dutch lawyer/investigator Vrijman, a friend of the then former President, to attempt to exonerate Lance Armstrong for 1999 positives and issuing that report without formal UCI knowledge or approval.

2. Not disclosing the existence of secret funds available to the UCI amounting to $3m and the draw down and recording of those funds made available by the Japanese Keiren Association in 1997 as consideration for including the Keiren event in the 2000 Olympics.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
FGimondi said:
This lawsuit is the legal equivalent of a joke. Anyone can see the ridiculousness of bringing a defemation suit against claims made in an english paper by an irish journalist for a swiss court. A case wich quite obviously falls outside a swiss courts jurisdiction. The right thing to do would be to launch this case in the country the paper wich published the alleged defamatory claims were published. But that would mean the UCI/Verbruggen/McQuaid actually thought they hade a case.

The whole point of this lawsuit is to create headlines and make the impression that Kimmages allegations has been concluded, in a fair and legal trial, to be defamatory and should be treated as such when in fact the trial will be a onesided summmation by the accusing party as Kimmage has no reason to accept or be party to a case in these matters brought before a swiss court. More smoke and screens than anything. If you're a cynic a missuse of power by the UCI or if you have a sense of humour a bit of a joke.
UCI used the same modus operandi with Floyd Landis in May 2010 but did not commence proceedings despite their media release. However, they have gone one step further with Kimmage by filing and serving a statement of claim.

UCI Media release in May 2010

The International Cycling Union (UCI), its current President, Mr Pat McQuaid, and one of its former Presidents, Mr Hein Verbruggen, have lodged a case in the Swiss courts against Mr Floyd Landis regarding repeated, serious attacks against their characters.

By this step, made necessary by numerous unacceptable public statements by Mr Landis, the UCI is seeking to defend the integrity of the cycling movement as a whole against the accusations of a rider who, by breaching the Anti-doping Rules, caused cycling serious harm.
 
Velodude said:
UCI used the same modus operandi with Floyd Landis in May 2010 but did not commence proceedings despite their media release. However, they have gone one step further with Kimmage by filing and serving a statement of claim.
Floyd's masterstroke was he said he’d have to reveal all the riders names who had been granted immunity by the USADA whom he’d gave information about if he went to court. He also received LeMond’s lawyers to assist.

I think Kimmage will get a similar kind of support in the coming days.
 
thehog said:
Its Demand cash as the whole gang has invested.

http://www.mobli.com/lancearmstrong
This is the classic pump phase in a pump and dump. Someone somewhere poured tons of money into the scheme and the marketing dollars are being spent buying celebrity association to the site as a way to generate traffic.

This idea has been tried before. Maybe more money will make it work this time?

It sounds to me like a Kimmage Fairness Fund is needed. I'll contribute.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY