Skins launch $2 million law suit against UCI

Jun 12, 2010
1,234
0
0
Nov 3, 2012
29
0
0
Skins were a partner of the Rabobank Cycling Team. They were the first Company to be certified by Bike Pure. They have a strong anti-doping stance.
 
I didn't see this one coming.

It would seem they have a difficult case since they have only been in the sport since 2008. The UCI will point to the bio passport. What overt act since 2008 wil Skins point to?
 
Nov 3, 2012
29
0
0
Overt acts ? What about allowing Armstrong back into the sport in 2009. Armstrong's blood profile from the 2009 Tour De France. Highly indicative of blood manipulation. Alberto Contador testing positive for clenbuterol.
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
BroDeal said:
I didn't see this one coming.

It would seem they have a difficult case since they have only been in the sport since 2008. The UCI will point to the bio passport. What overt act since 2008 wil Skins point to?
Could be more brand promotion than being rankled and financially damaged.

Now more people will become aware of SKINS.

The jury is out on whether compression clothing works or is just a fad. Maybe a prospective line of defense for poor financially distressed UCI.
 
Jun 16, 2009
60
0
0
As much as I want to see the UCI reformed, I'm having trouble finding much demonstrable damage to SKINS. They'll get much more publicity from this stunt than they ever did as a sponsor. Unfortunately, the tactic is pretty transparent. Hope it doesn't backfire.
 
Jun 15, 2012
193
0
0
If enough people will turn on the UCI then it will be forced to clean house, get rid of Pat and Hein. I think it's "when" not "if" Pat and Hein get forced out. The pressure will continue to build on those 2 and eventually it will snap. Why someone would give money to an organization like that is beyond me....
 
Sep 3, 2012
40
0
0
eyemgh said:
As much as I want to see the UCI reformed, I'm having trouble finding much demonstrable damage to SKINS.

I'm inclined to agree.

However, seeing Pat and Hein on the receiving end of vexatious and well-funded litigation makes me smile :)
 
Scorpius said:
Overt acts ? What about allowing Armstrong back into the sport in 2009. Armstrong's blood profile from the 2009 Tour De France. Highly indicative of blood manipulation. Alberto Contador testing positive for clenbuterol.
The UCI will say that they thought the bio passport was sufficiently robust to prevent most blood doping but do acknowledge there will be borderline cases that cannot be sanctioned. Unless someone can prove that Armstrong's profile was flagged by the passport committee but the UCI did not act on it then it remains one of many passports that are indicative of doping but not to such a degree that action can be taken other than targeted testing.

Contador testing positive mean nothing unless it can be shown the UCI tried to cover it up. It's not like McQuaid popped a Clenbuterol pill into Contador's mouth.

The best avenues to explore are the UCI facilitating the return of Armstrong by meeting with the ASO, which resulted in Patrice Clerc being replaced; delays and warnings during testing during the 2009 and 2010 TdF; the UCI refusing to woth with national anti-doping agencies, like AFLD at the Tour and USADA at the TOC; and pressuring potential witnesses to doping.

How this might have harmed Skins is unclear. If sponsorship contracts were renewed during the time in question then Skins could have mitigated any damages it claims it has suffered.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Velodude said:
Could be more brand promotion than being rankled and financially damaged.

Now more people will become aware of SKINS.

The jury is out on whether compression clothing works or is just a fad. Maybe a prospective line of defense for poor financially distressed UCI.
I agree and what's to lose? Promoting clean sport will be a hot ticket.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
BroDeal said:
The UCI will say that they thought the bio passport was sufficiently robust to prevent most blood doping but do acknowledge there will be borderline cases that cannot be sanctioned. Unless someone can prove that Armstrong's profile was flagged by the passport committee but the UCI did not act on it then it remains one of many passports that are indicative of doping but not to such a degree that action can be taken other than targeted testing.

Contador testing positive mean nothing unless it can be shown the UCI tried to cover it up. It's not like McQuaid popped a Clenbuterol pill into Contador's mouth.

The best avenues to explore are the UCI facilitating the return of Armstrong by meeting with the ASO, which resulted in Patrice Clerc being replaced; delays and warnings during testing during the 2009 and 2010 TdF; the UCI refusing to woth with national anti-doping agencies, like AFLD at the Tour and USADA at the TOC; and pressuring potential witnesses to doping.

How this might have harmed Skins is unclear. If sponsorship contracts were renewed during the time in question then Skins could have mitigated any damages it claims it has suffered.
Hajo Seppelt, the German journo, is convinced UCI attempted to cover up Dirty's positive. Also, Kimmage spoke of "unleashing hell". I assume a smart/experienced guy like him wouldn't use such strong wordings if he wasn't convinced to have some sort of smoking gun evidence of corruption.
 
Mar 12, 2010
545
0
0
Who is the Lawyer representing Skins?

Who is the Lawyer representing Paul Kimmage?

Oh, and already being discussed in the Paul Kimmage thread.
 
TheGame said:
Who is the Lawyer representing Skins?

Who is the Lawyer representing Paul Kimmage?

Oh, and already being discussed in the Paul Kimmage thread.
yes, Cédric Aguet, lawyer for both :D

(which is why i posted it in that thread because, in the scheme of things, it's all intertwined)

(ignore the trolls, we've obviously hit a sore spot)
 
Mar 12, 2010
545
0
0
thirteen said:
yes, Cédric Aguet, lawyer for both :D

(which is why i posted it in that thread because, in the scheme of things, it's all intertwined)
It is 110% related to the Kimmage case. Aguet is forcing the UCI into making a legal statement of defence that they really dont want to be making. Its not check mate yet, but that surely can only be a couple of moves away.
 
TheGame said:
It is 110% related to the Kimmage case. Aguet is forcing the UCI into making a legal statement of defence that they really dont want to be making. Its not check mate yet, but that surely can only be a couple of moves away.
waiting with bated breath :p
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
TheGame said:
It is 110% related to the Kimmage case. Aguet is forcing the UCI into making a legal statement of defence that they really dont want to be making. Its not check mate yet, but that surely can only be a couple of moves away.
could you expand? I'm not sure if I correctly understand.
 
sniper said:
could you expand? I'm not sure if I correctly understand.
Its now a legal "context" by which they have to respond within the legal framework. Before they were issuing media statements which are not bound in the same manner and open for interpretation.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
I fear this suit will do severe damage to the sport and to anti doping efforts. Try too hard to eradicate a problem and the publicity ruins you. Maybe Baseball and football have it right. Frankly they missed the mark anyway. They should be suing WADA for their unfair treatment of doping in cycling while completely ignoring the problems in the other sports. Operation Puerto has been mostly a cover up of football and tennis dopers. We don't need external criticism of the sport because we can do a better job ourselves.
 
Sep 13, 2010
297
0
9,030
I welcome this case. Will be interesting to see evidence from Skins. To think it is for PR etc is rather facile and a large assumption. Such cases are not taken lightly!

Could set an interesting precedent for further cases and may help get to the root of issues which are diminishing the sport.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
eyemgh said:
As much as I want to see the UCI reformed, I'm having trouble finding much demonstrable damage to SKINS. They'll get much more publicity from this stunt than they ever did as a sponsor. Unfortunately, the tactic is pretty transparent. Hope it doesn't backfire.
+ infinity divided by 0.

1. I had no idea Skins were even involved as sponsors.
2. Doping scandals in no way affect my view of the Skins brand.
3. I am pretty sure there are a bunch of other sports Skins are involved with that have far worse doping problems that never come to light.

Opportunistic at best.

I hope it does backfire - teach them a lesson.

When they first came out, their ads were something along the lines of:

WE DON'T SPONSOR ATHLETES, COZ WE KNOW WE ARE THE BEST. ATHLETES CAN BUY OUR KIT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

or words to that effect. Very "in your face" and belligerent. Kinda ironic to now be suing due to concerns of sponsorship linking doping scandals to the brand.
 
Mar 12, 2010
545
0
0
As already stated, this has nothing to do with any damages Skins may or may not have suffered. It is all about drawing a legal response from the UCI that may be relevant to any criminal action by Paul Kimmage.
 
BroDeal said:
It would seem they have a difficult case since they have only been in the sport since 2008. The UCI will point to the bio passport. What overt act since 2008 wil Skins point to?
I don't think it has to be an act since 2008. Skins claim that the UCI misrepresented the state of the sport leading up to 2008, causing skins to enter into sponsorship of cycling under false pretenses.

Yes I agree this is a publicity stunt but any kind of legal pressure that may lead to broader revelations can only be a good thing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY