Skins launch $2 million law suit against UCI

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 28, 2012
59
0
0
http://captaintbag.tumblr.com/post/35007754689/expert-analysis-skinz-is-fulluv-sh*t

Ha! Here's my translation:

"Look, I'm a fuggin big proponent of mcquaid and verbruggen gettin rode the fugg outta cycling on a pike, but the level of hypocrisy from this borderline pseudo-performance company, saying they've been deceived by the UCI, only makes me wonder if they've been similarly deceived by their own R&D department, considering the absolute tonne of research that's gone into compression wear, the results of which still showing mixed results, especially in the context of a publication bias towards positive findings, means yer Rapha-priced compression underwear rates barely above andy’s unicor-strewn magic underwear, in terms of scientific fuggin backing.

So, SKINZ, before suing the UCI over errors of ommission, you may wanna take a bit fuggin closer look at your own fuggin errors of omission and blatant fuggin hand waving"
 
Ferminal said:
Pat and Hein have done this for years to weaken the credibility of their enemies. Regardless of their motives, a sponsor doing this provides added publicity in turning the tables back against the UCI.

As such I really couldn't care that they are doing it to increase sales, it's still an attempt to damage the UCI.
Is further damage even possible?

All that is left now is for someone to try and take the patient's pulse to confirm death by Nein and Phat.

Dave.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Polyarmour said:
This will just gouge money out of cycling at the end of the day.
We have enough trouble already trying to sort things out.
B*gger off Skins.
Just how much profit is $2M anyway? That's a lot of pairs of compression garments.

20-40,000 pairs / items I'd guesstimate.
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
Polyarmour said:
This will just gouge money out of cycling at the end of the day.
We have enough trouble already trying to sort things out.
B*gger off Skins.
Cycnical marketing ploy dressed up as anti doping.They haven't lost 2$ million because of the Drugs in cycling, on the contrary cycling sales are booming, and Skins have been milking it to the max.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
thehog said:
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.
thanks hog!
 
blackcat said:
that is damn funny thirteen, if indeed it is a joke. They are arm warmers sold as "compression garments".
i was serious but always happy to be funny, even if it was unintentional :p

my bad, though. i was, indeed, talking about the compression sleeves. i think of them as arm warmers as well because the extra layer helps stave off cold.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
blackcat said:
Skins were also up before the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Council) for false and misleading advertising. They said they do not pay, endorse or sponsor athletes. They did, they do. http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/852036

And they are really deluded wrt cycling reality. They did perhaps pay Aus$1k to Hardie's doping conference in Geelong Australia in 2010 at the Worlds. They had some sponsor branding there. And their general counsel, Benjamin Fitzmaurice, was there. He had on his twitter page, a banner screen, dopers suck. And they sponsored the AIS team. Jayco Skins. Little did they know, the doping goes to the heart of the sport, and is the sport. And they should have known, and done their due diligence, instead of due ignorance. Fitzmaurice should have known how dirty the sport was, instead of naively devouring the myth.

The UCI should counter sue for a vexatious claim and costs.
That's interesting, cheers for the link - seems a bit hypocritical for Skins to be getting on their high horse & taking the moral high ground when they're guilty of pretty shady activity in their own business dealings. Their misdeeds do pale into total insignificance in comparison to the apparent criminality & cynicism of the dirty duo though.

I'd be interested to see if anybody had informed legal opinion on your idea that Skins' claim could be viewed as vexatious for the reasons you outlined ( "they should have known better").
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
Grandillusion said:
That's interesting, cheers for the link - seems a <snip>

I'd be interested to see if anybody had informed legal opinion on your idea that Skins' claim could be viewed as vexatious for the reasons you outlined ( "they should have known better").
i can not offer a legal opinion, but it should be apparent to any sane person not to mention a savvy corporate chap like jaimie fuller that 'they should have known better'.

but the way i read the developments, that point becomes irrelevant if the skins chairman recent words are dissected with a watch in hand...

he made some very strong anti-uci statements in the past and he continued with the criticism... the last move is nothing but a logical step in the sequence of events previously contemplated and planned.

i don't fully understand fuller's motivation. for all i know, it could be as noble as a personal anti-doping stance or as low as an individual grudge wrapped in corporate cloth. but tbh, i don't give a shyte..i'm just happy, in fact, i am ecstatic, that paul kimmage has got such a helper.

yes, i think the skins move was about nothing more and nothing less but throwing its weight behind kimmage to keep the tactical momentum b/c the uci is now at it's weakest

as i said earlier, i don't think the corporation's true motivation is recovering damages.

rather, using the threat of recovering damages through a protracted and expansive legal battle - 'because we can outspend you' - to cause a little mutiny among the uci stakeholders. a series of behind the scene meetings may have started already. and the price asked is really small - just throw verbruggen to the dogs and ship your own **** back to ireland.

simple.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
python said:
i can not offer a legal opinion, but it should be apparent to any sane person not to mention a savvy corporate chap like jaimie fuller that 'they should have known better'.

but the way i read the developments, that point becomes irrelevant if the skins chairman recent words are dissected with a watch in hand...

he made some very strong anti-uci statements in the past and he continued with the criticism... the last move is nothing but a logical step in the sequence of events previously contemplated and planned.

i don't fully understand fuller's motivation. for all i know, it could be as noble as a personal anti-doping stance or as low as an individual grudge wrapped in corporate cloth. but tbh, i don't give a shyte..i'm just happy, in fact, i am ecstatic, that paul kimmage has got such a helper.

yes, i think the skins move was about nothing more and nothing less but throwing its weight behind kimmage to keep the tactical momentum b/c the uci is now at it's weakest

as i said earlier, i don't think the corporation's true motivation is recovering damages.

rather, using the threat of recovering damages through a protracted and expansive legal battle - 'because we can outspend you' - to cause a little mutiny among the uci stakeholders. a series of behind the scene meetings may have started already. and the price asked is really small - just throw verbruggen to the dogs and ship your own **** back to ireland.

simple.
I'm just a bit confused though as to how they could be simultaneously savvy to the ill-deeds & dodgy reputation of the UCI & condemnatory of the same organisation. Am I missing something?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
i do not see the confusion so perhaps someone else can help you...though i doubt it will.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
I thought the contradiction was obvious, I must be missing something, oh well.

I'll go back to lurking, I know ****** all anyway. :)
 
Grandillusion said:
I'm just a bit confused though as to how they could be simultaneously savvy to the ill-deeds & dodgy reputation of the UCI & condemnatory of the same organisation. Am I missing something?
I dunno, I know alot about the dodgy reputation of the UCI just from being on a forum, and I'm condemnatory of that organization. I don't see it as a conflict in the slightest, in fact it seems to be quite complimentary.
 
I would love for anyone, Skins or Kimmage, to get a refund of every dime I spent on UCI licenses.

Not that this would come anywhere near $2m, but it is the principle that counts. And, I frankly don't care if there is a dogpile of lawsuit claims to soak every single dime that the UCI might have.

They have earned the attention.

As for Skins' legal costs, I consider this good marketing. I am now actively considering a nice set of compression arm warmers.

The three Miceketeers: Lance, Nein and Phat have already corrupted the entire UCI enterprise. There can be no further damage inflicted. Any profiteering (not that the Skins' suit is such) is simply tallying the cost inflicted.

In terms of suit validity, how many times have Nein or Phat reassured us that the sport is cleaner now, that Lance is vindicated by Vrijman, that doping is < 1%, that there will be no positive tests, Lance never tested positive, that doping is only something that happens in Southern European countries, etc., etc.

It should not be hard to find corroborating evidence to support the SKINS claim at any year since Festina, including this one.

Dave.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
skidmark said:
I dunno, I know alot about the dodgy reputation of the UCI just from being on a forum, and I'm condemnatory of that organization. I don't see it as a conflict in the slightest, in fact it seems to be quite complimentary.
Yep, but you haven't entered into a contract with the UCI which you're now claiming may be void because of their criminality (which you knew of because it was so obvious).

I think Velodude gave some informed opinions on the other (Kimmage) thread but I missed it.

I was merely interested in whether their actions really may be considered a vexatious claim as others on here have intimated. I would hope not, for all the reasons others have given.

Back to lurking :)
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
I was exaggerating ;)
for affect, as Skins are not one who comport to truth and rigour. And any due diligence should have told them, cycling was not cleaner since Fest TINA
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
blackcat said:
I was exaggerating ;)
for affect, as Skins are not one who comport to truth and rigour. And any due diligence should have told them, cycling was not cleaner since Fest TINA
Oops, Mr literal here. :eek:
 
May 14, 2010
5,306
2
0
Listen, I'm as hostile to / suspicious of /cynical about corporate interests as the next person. But this is not the time for it. This company is attempting to be the outside agent that can call UCI to account. For it isn't true that UCI answers to no one; they answer to the money. The more sponsors do this, the faster things will change for the better.

In the end it really doesn't matter why they do it, just so long as they do. This is some serious additional pressure being brought to bear on the UCI to jettison Verdruggem and Pat and reform itself.
 
May 3, 2010
2,662
0
0
Maxiton said:
Listen, I'm as hostile to / suspicious of /cynical about corporate interests as the next person. But this is not the time for it. This company is attempting to be the outside agent that can call UCI to account. For it isn't true that UCI answers to no one; they answer to the money. The more sponsors do this, the faster things will change for the better.

In the end it really doesn't matter why they do it, just so long as they do. This is some serious additional pressure being brought to bear on the UCI to jettison Verdruggem and Pat and reform itself.
That is the bottomline. Cycling will only change when sponsors demand it.
 
May 25, 2011
153
0
0
Mrs John Murphy said:
That is the bottomline. Cycling will only change when sponsors demand it.
And the professionals and amateurs themselves. Remember Lemond's plan.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY