UCI, McQuaid & Verbruggen in lawsuit against Landis

[la.margna]

I thought Floyd has zero credibility, so why spend time, money and energy one a useless lawsuit??!!

 

[MarkvW]

huh?

Ah, you're assuming anyone here was stupid enough to give to the FFF.

Amazing how the UCI said they would release documentation to support their case in the name of transparency yet never did. Instead they are trying to sue him (through the media) in an effort to silence him.


Whats funny is how you call Floyd a 'weasel' etc ..... and then say he has an 'expectancy' of megabucks - won't he only get paid if his story is true?

No!

It is quite possible for a fraud on the USA to be proven, without proving a UCI payoff.

Just because Floyd is a lying unrepentant cheating doper doesn't mean everything he says is false.

 

[Big GMaC]

The interesting thing to me is that there are four major anti-doping stories going on now:

1) the Armstrong investigation
2) the Contador case
3) the Italian investigation of Ferrari
4) UCI suit against Floyd

Mantova

Don''t forget that one

 

[thehog]

GreyManrod: Is there a Swiss equivalent of "shooting yourself in the foot"?
about 3 hours ago

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No!

It is quite possible for a fraud on the USA to be proven, without proving a UCI payoff.

Just because Floyd is a lying unrepentant cheating doper doesn't mean everything he says is false.

The UCI said the case is "regarding repeated, serious attacks against their characters."

If he wins his case in the US then it shows McQuaid & HV as the "characters" they really are.

 

[VeloCity]

If this does go forward, I'd be very interested to see who Landis' defense team calls in as corroborating witnesses.

 

[thehog]

GreyManrod: Is there a Swiss equivalent of "shooting yourself in the foot"?
about 3 hours ago

I have to say even Lance would be shaking his head at this one. I'm wrong on my flushing theory. This is about "honor". It's more Hein than Pat but what Hein wants Pat does. This lawsuit will go the way of every other one...... But Pat will say in from here onwards: "We dealt with Floyd and his allegations. We can't say much more due to legal proceedings in Switzerland. I've seen some of the stories come out of the Federal trial on Armstrong in the US but I comment due to the legal issues surrounding our case with Landis. The UCI however maintains it's integrity on these matters".

 

[powerste]

"Be My Enemy"

I'm reminded of fmk's take on the UCI's constant fight-picking. Although this particular effort may well be so pointless as to alienate some of those whom McQ is trying to rally around him.

 

[Polish]

This latest lawsuit claims Floyd has damaged pro cycling's integrity, not the UCI's integrity....

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."

Maybe the UCI just wants to get a restraining order?
Floyd must stay 500 meters away from any pro race or something like that.

 

[D-Queued]

How to profit from whistleblower suit 101

This is all very simple and easily explained.

1. Pat & Hein's meal ticket for the past ten years is about to capsize. (there is no ability to prove defamation of character when they so obviously bungled the explanation of the donations - and that is just for starters)

2. Pat & Hein need a new meal ticket

3. Floyd's chances on collecting Whistleblower money look a lot better than another donation from Lance

Pat & Hein are shrewd, and know when to switch horses.

Dave.

 

[Digger]

No!

It is quite possible for a fraud on the USA to be proven, without proving a UCI payoff.

Just because Floyd is a lying unrepentant cheating doper doesn't mean everything he says is false.

So he was lying when he didn't say he doped, and he's lying when he did say he doped. So basically there's nothing whatsoever he can do. Once someone tells lies in your eyes, that's them done for life, even when they do come out and reveal all. Some fair logic behind that one.

 

[Barrus]

Granville's damages point is super spot on, but that's something Floyd will have to prove/disprove (at his expense). Otherwise, he's stuck.

No, it's the UCI who needs to prove that they have suffered damages, it is not up to Floyd to prove that they did not suffer any damages

 

[D-Queued]

No, it's the UCI who needs to prove that they have suffered damages, it is not up to Floyd to prove that they did not suffer any damages

Exactly. And that is farcical.

We had another thread - something like why don't you like the UCI - that should perhaps have a sticky as it recounts many of the gross absurdities, lies and deceptions.

Dave.

 

[Polish]

No, it's the UCI who needs to prove that they have suffered damages, it is not up to Floyd to prove that they did not suffer any damages

No Barrus, the UCI needs to prove that Floyd damaged pro cycling's integrity. Not the UCI's integrity.

How hard will it be for the UCI to present evidence that Floyd damaged cycling? Not hard. Heck, Floyd has probably admitted it somewhere along the line.

Floyd will have to prove his accusations I would think.

 

[D-Queued]

No Barrus, the UCI needs to prove that Floyd damaged pro cycling's integrity. Not the UCI's integrity.

How hard will it be for the UCI to present evidence that Floyd damaged cycling? Not hard. Heck, Floyd has probably admitted it somewhere along the line.

Floyd will have to prove his accusations I would think.

How could he admit that? He would need financial proof - this is what damages are.

Now, speaking of the devil, weren't you one of those telling us how Lance saved the finances of the sport?

If what you said had any truth, then the fortunes of pro cycling are more tied to Lance's participation than anything Floyd might have done.

Not that I believed you then, of course. But, the broader point is how can you prove any damages?

Floyd's Tour positive came right after OP. His admission last year came just before Contador got busted.

MOREOVER, if anything related to doping in cycling is hurting professional cycling then that problem rests entirely with the UCI.

As heads of the UCI, Hein and Verbruggen are the sole figures responsible for any impact of doping on the fortunes of cycling.

While that is stating the obvious, apparently they still do not get it.

By fostering and nurturing a culture of doping, Hein and Pat are ultimately responsible for providing an environment where Landis could dope and an environment where he could decide to talk about doping.

Dave.

 

[Benotti69]

cycling's intregrity was thrown in the bin in the 90's along with lots of used blood bags.

Biggest winner of the TdF under investigation. Operation Peurto (Fuentes investigated twice), Ferarri 2nd time under investigation. Contador positive, Lampre (Mantova investigation) Riccó self blood doping. UCI accepting payments from a rider?

2010 tested positive for doping or banned riders;
Pawel Szczepaniak
Kacper Szczepaniak
Alejandro Valverde
Lorenzo Bernucci
Dan Staite
Thomas Frei
Li Fuyu
Gabriele Bosisio
Franco Pellizotti
Jesus Rosendo Prado
Tadej Valjavec
Mickaël Larpe
Francesco De Bonis
Pietro Caucchioli
Ricardo Serrano
Niklas Axelsson
Roy Sentjens
Ezequiel Mosquera
David García Dapena
Joao Benta
Alessandro Colo
Alberto Contador(CAS Appeal)

a really clean sport full of integrity

 

[mmedeast]

As I tweeted to the UCI-Overlord (not Pat McQuaid)

(UCI-Overlord is really not Pat, but is a person who is very funny)

2 directors-1 vial. It's the newest internet movie you can't not watch. International reaction roughly the same. Titillated disgust.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Why is UCI going after FL now? Floyd made these accusations nearly six months ago. Did it take UCI this long to determine that they had a case they thought they could win? Or as Hog claims, is this a way of finding out what Floyd will tell Novitzy? Possible that it has something to do with Floyd on 60 minutes?

The interesting thing to me is that there are four major anti-doping stories going on now:

1) the Armstrong investigation
2) the Contador case
3) the Italian investigation of Ferrari
4) UCI suit against Floyd


Though these are independent actions, the connections among them are obvious, particularly among 1), 3), and 4).

Excellent summary! Maybe you should add the Mantova investigation?

Wrt Contador, when McQ initially rebutted Floyd last November, he offered the Contador case as evidence that UCI did not protect riders. Highly ironic, of course, given what we know about how that case was handled in its initial stages.

We know they protect riders. This is not controversial. Look at Li Fu Yu's (sp??) swift processing versus Pharmador's. The same contradiction is repeated elsewhere. The opposite of protecting riders happens too. Was Rassmussen(sp??) ever charged with anything?

The appeal is valuable theater for the UCI. Pat would be furious if it actually works. It screws up his July holiday programming.

 

[Polish]

cycling's intregrity was thrown in the bin in the 90's along with lots of used blood bags.

Biggest winner of the TdF under investigation. Operation Peurto (Fuentes investigated twice), Ferarri 2nd time under investigation. Contador positive, Lampre (Mantova investigation) Riccó self blood doping. UCI accepting payments from a rider?

2010 tested positive for doping or banned riders;
Pawel Szczepaniak
Kacper Szczepaniak
Alejandro Valverde
Lorenzo Bernucci
Dan Staite
Thomas Frei
Li Fuyu
Gabriele Bosisio
Franco Pellizotti
Jesus Rosendo Prado
Tadej Valjavec
Mickaël Larpe
Francesco De Bonis
Pietro Caucchioli
Ricardo Serrano
Niklas Axelsson
Roy Sentjens
Ezequiel Mosquera
David García Dapena
Joao Benta
Alessandro Colo
Alberto Contador(CAS Appeal)

a really clean sport full of integrity

The UCI lawsuit is against Floyd for damaging integrity.
If Floyd wants to argue other cheats damaged the sport too, fine.
Might be a good defense who knows.
But maybe Floyd did more damage than those others UCI can argue.

And there are clean riders for every doper on that list.
Catching dopers is not always a bad thing

But maybe Floyd should sue the UCI for damaging the sport?
Maybe a class action lawsuit from the Clinic could be launched?

 

[Race Radio]

Don't do it! He's already defrauded contributors once. He could use your money to settle and you'd feel horribly used--AGAIN!

Let Floyd put up or shut up. Let him bear the consequences of his actions. The man is a total weasel. Filthy unrepentant doping slime.

What has Floyd said about the UCI that is actionable?

 

[Benotti69]

The......

Integrity and sporting federations are not something that goes hand in hand and the uci's record speaks volumes for its integrity........that is the absolute lack of.

When is some cycling journal gonna grow some balls and take McQuaid up on it.

 

[powerste]

What has Floyd said about the UCI that is actionable?

...and why hasn't the UCI highlighted anything actionable?

After all, there's no shortage whatsoever of recent "Floyd vs. the UCI" material in the public arena.

If their lawsuit is serious and credible, why wouldn't the UCI's announcement of if provide some details or examples of said defamation?

 

[Merckx index]

...and why hasn't the UCI highlighted anything actionable?

After all, there's no shortage whatsoever of recent "Floyd vs. the UCI" material in the public arena.

If their lawsuit is serious and credible, why wouldn't the UCI's announcement of if provide some details or examples of said defamation?

See my post #16, where I quoted Python. It's pretty clear this lawsuit is over Floyd's charge that UCI protected certain riders. The CN story makes the same point. Since the UCI had earlier threatened to sue if Floyd didn't retract, their suit now can be assumed to be over this issue. Anyone concerned would surely interpret it this way.

 

[thehog]

...and why hasn't the UCI highlighted anything actionable?

After all, there's no shortage whatsoever of recent "Floyd vs. the UCI" material in the public arena.

If their lawsuit is serious and credible, why wouldn't the UCI's announcement of if provide some details or examples of said defamation?

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/524499/uci-bans-bont-crono-shoe.html


The shoe was banned under rule 1.3.033 (Part 1: General organisation of cycling as a sport) that states 'It is forbidden to wear non-essential items of clothing or items designed to influence the performances of a rider such as reducing air resistance or modifying the body of the rider.'

"The ruling on this is an absolute joke", Bont CEO Steven Nemeth told Cycling Weekly. "The ruling is broken all over the place. If they treated everyone the same way then that would be the way it is, I'd say 'fair enough', and take it on the chin. But if they have one set of rules for one and another set of rules for someone else then they're just commercially handicapping me."

 

[thehog]

...and why hasn't the UCI highlighted anything actionable?

After all, there's no shortage whatsoever of recent "Floyd vs. the UCI" material in the public arena.

If their lawsuit is serious and credible, why wouldn't the UCI's announcement of if provide some details or examples of said defamation?

- Is this the same Hein that was baiting Floyd on email? The same Hein who has been "damaged" because Floyd contacted the UCI well before the media knew anything and the UCI sent a "cease & desist" letter rather than discuss the issues detailed in the original emails? Hard proving damages when the very person who you suggest has damaged you reaches out and tries to deal with it "confidentially".
------
From: Hein Verbruggen
Sent: Wednesday, June 2, 2010
To: Floyd Landis
Subject: The Associated Press: Victims of Landis' deceit celebrate confession

Dear Mr. Landis,

I did not want to accept the risk that you would miss this article.

After reading you might, together with me, conclude that if being a nuisance to (many) other people would be the main objective of your life, you succeed so well that you should still get a yellow jersey (this time WELL DESERVED!!).

Sincerely,

H. Verbruggen
_____

Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2010 6:16 PM

Thank you.

I did see it and I do get satisfaction from seeing others made happy. My life could have been focused on that had you done your job (honestly) before I ever had the opportunity to wear a yellow jersey.

Now if you'll also tell the truth along with Mr. Armstrong, I'm sure you'll make them celebrate a second time. I assure you that I'll forward all news links to you when that happens.

Have a great day.
Floyd Landis
_____

Thank you Mr. Landis.

Having lived for 69 years now, I sure have made mistakes but never the one that you made : being fundamentally dishonest with other people.

As to my activities in sport, I dedicated 30 years to sport as an administrator of which the last 15 on a full time basis. I never took any money, presents or other remunerations. I declared under oath in a French court that I have never put a doping case under the table nor any other breach of the rules. And I take oaths very serious. Also, after a thorough investigation, that court concluded that under my presidency the UCI has done everything (!) against doping it possibly could have done. That is the truth you are asking for and nothing else than the truth. Nobody, absolutely nobody, will ever be able to come up with a proof of me having been dishonest.

Now here comes a person like you (and with your records!) who tells me I am dishonest and even repeats this in public (spare me the argument that it was "someone else" who told you). What mentality one must have to do things like that to other persons? Just give it a thought that I indeed speak the truth and then judge yourself, judge your mentality! All this because you need to see other victims around you now you are one yourself. Because it becomes clear that you still do not see yourself as someone responsible for his own deeds and mistakes; no you see yourself as a victim of what other people did. But you are an adult person and you should accept that whoever influenced your decisions (your parents positively no doubt and others perhaps negatively), it is you and no one else than you who took the decision to use drugs and you should take that responsibility as a man. That is the mentality you should show. That is also the best way to restore self respect and to face the future. By making innocent people (and yes, I am innocent on what you said about me!), you show that you still have not accepted yourself as a responsible person. I'm sorry for you; really sorry.

Sincerely,

Hein Verbruggen
_____

Sent: Fri Jun 04 12:05:44 2010

Mr. Verbruggen,

You certainly have lived longer and seen much more corruption than I, so I'll take what you say with that in mind. I'd also like to congratulate you on being the first person ever to have lived 69 years without ever having told a lie (being fundamentally dishonest with other people). For that you deserve a yellow jersey for honesty and I'd like to be the one to present it to you. I'll be glad to do so when you present yourself here, in the United States of America, to testify in front of the grand jury that is assembled to determine if you've ever lied.

Regarding my decisions to dope and to lie. I made bad choices and cannot change them but I learned one thing a few weeks ago that my parents have always tried to teach me: the truth shall set you free. I think that even applies after 69 years of lies, maybe you can confirm that for me.

Thanks again Floyd Landis Yellow Jersey Wearer: Nuisance Category
____