-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
I have to agree with TSK on this. What the hell kind of legalese is this supposed to be?TeamSkyFans said:
Is it a crime to "basically indicate" that something "may" have happened?
As for the "creating stars" bit, wasn't that straight out of McQuaids mouth to begin with?
I'm sure both Floyd and Beazed are equally intimidated by the ridiculous antics of the UCI.
Dr. Maserati
BANNED
Hugh Januss said:It's really working out for them.
Thankfully Floyd doesn't care - but it shows the mentality of the 'Men of Honor', say something unflatering about them and they set the lawyers on you - the worst part is that we the licence holders pick up the tab.
Dr. Maserati said:
Although to be fair it probably won't cost much as all they will do is bluster, and threaten.
BotanyBay said:
Heinz: "Pat, you better get on this thing right away!"
Pat: "I know, I know. But the guy won the Tour. How's that going to look?"
Heinz: "I don't give a sh*t! I left this franchise to you and I'm not getting my cheese; you know what I mean you Irish gangster?"
Pat: "Don't get your panties in a bunch, Heinz..."
Heinz: "MR. VERBRUGGEN TO YOU, TOILET TROUT!"
Pat: "Yeah, but we gotta give it a little time, you know to cool off."
Heinz: "He's been going on about this since last Spring!"
Pat: "Wait...what...who? We talking about the same thing?"
Heinz: "LANDIS YOU IDIOT!"
Pat: "Oh...I thought you meant...never mind. I'm on it."
Hugh Januss said:Although to be fair it probably won't cost much as all they will do is bluster, and threaten.
The irony is that this is where our UCI fees are going.
We are paying for it. Not these clowns.
But, I will still gladly provide matching contributions to any legal defense costs that Floyd requires.
Can't believe I just said that. But, reality is always stranger than fiction.
Dave.
thehog
BANNED
BotanyBay said:
Correct. The newswires report "UCI to sue Landis". I think that was the intention. Job done. None of them report Floyd's reply which is priceless.
thehog said:
Are we certain that this whole thing wasn't 'ideated' by one of Lance's growing PR affiliates?
Dave.
Granville57 said:I have to agree with TSK on this. What the hell kind of legalese is this supposed to be?
Is it a crime to "basically indicate" that something "may" have happened?
As for the "creating stars" bit, wasn't that straight out of McQuaids mouth to begin with?
I'm sure both Floyd and Beazed are equally intimidated by the ridiculous antics of the UCI.
I thought using the term `may' was very odd. I don't think you would go after someone in the UK courts on the basis that you stated the other party suggested you `may have done something'!
thehog
BANNED
The closing summary is nothing short of brilliant:
Mr. Ditesheim, the previous letter sent by you, dated 07 Feb 2011 requires a retraction by Mr. Landis. It sets a 15-day window for such a retraction to be submitted. Given the points listed above which detail the fundamental concession that Mr. Landis' statements are "probably true", the established fact that Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Verbruggen are public figures, and that Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires the predicate of "unlawful attack" to be the basis for legal recourse, we feel that Mr. Landis has acted in a "lawful" manner at all times since he has disclosed his previous behaviours, has told the truth (as accepted by Mr. McQuaid). We consider the threat of any further legal action against him by your clients to be baseless and frivolous, serving the sole purpose of chilling his voice as it relates to his truthful comments to the media, and further exposure of truths about many facets of professional cycling during this period.
It is public knowledge that Mr. Landis has cooperated with the US Food and Drug Administration in providing his eye-witness accounts and conveyed his truthful knowledge of doping during his cycling career. For your information, providing false statements to the US Food and Drug Administration in the course of an investigation carries with it severe penalties. Mr. Landis maintains that he proffered his truthful recollections to the authorities. Mr. Landis understand his responsibility to tell the truth in this matter, and given the radical and direct contradiction of previously made statements by Mr. McQuaid, it is encouraging to see that they, too, understand the import of coming to terms with the truth in the matter.
Please feel free to answer the above questions. In the absence of your direct answers and given the consideration of Mr. McQuaid’s current concession that Mr. Landis' statements are "probably true", we will consider this to be closure to this matter.
Finest regards,
Sigmund A. Manrod
http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2011/landis-emails
Mr. Ditesheim, the previous letter sent by you, dated 07 Feb 2011 requires a retraction by Mr. Landis. It sets a 15-day window for such a retraction to be submitted. Given the points listed above which detail the fundamental concession that Mr. Landis' statements are "probably true", the established fact that Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Verbruggen are public figures, and that Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires the predicate of "unlawful attack" to be the basis for legal recourse, we feel that Mr. Landis has acted in a "lawful" manner at all times since he has disclosed his previous behaviours, has told the truth (as accepted by Mr. McQuaid). We consider the threat of any further legal action against him by your clients to be baseless and frivolous, serving the sole purpose of chilling his voice as it relates to his truthful comments to the media, and further exposure of truths about many facets of professional cycling during this period.
It is public knowledge that Mr. Landis has cooperated with the US Food and Drug Administration in providing his eye-witness accounts and conveyed his truthful knowledge of doping during his cycling career. For your information, providing false statements to the US Food and Drug Administration in the course of an investigation carries with it severe penalties. Mr. Landis maintains that he proffered his truthful recollections to the authorities. Mr. Landis understand his responsibility to tell the truth in this matter, and given the radical and direct contradiction of previously made statements by Mr. McQuaid, it is encouraging to see that they, too, understand the import of coming to terms with the truth in the matter.
Please feel free to answer the above questions. In the absence of your direct answers and given the consideration of Mr. McQuaid’s current concession that Mr. Landis' statements are "probably true", we will consider this to be closure to this matter.
Finest regards,
Sigmund A. Manrod
http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/2011/landis-emails
thehog said:
Is Landis really in business with Grey/Manrod?
I mean, it's brilliant indeed, but who wrote it?
thehog
BANNED
sniper said:
I like this section of the letter:
Secondary question: Will Pat McQuaid repeat his claim that there has "never been corruption in the UCI" under oath during the current US Federal investigation?
Tertiary question: McQuaid proclaims they'd "welcome any investigation into the UCI". I would suggest the use of Grey Manrod Associates Forensic Auditing Department. We are almost set to hire our specialist in this field. Let's arrange for a meeting on this topic as we'd appreciate being able to start right away. I assume Mr. McQuaid is being "honoruable" in his statement and offer to allow the investigation.
Point 3:
Mr. McQuaid exclaims that "I took over here in 2005, and certainly since I became president, I can vouch for the fact there has been no corruption in the UCI,"
Dated 08 Feb 2011 edition of Cycling Weekly magazine. Interweb link:*http://www.scribd.com/doc/49173811/mcquaidinterview
Priamry question: Since this is a departure from the previous comment that there has "never been corruption in the UCI", is Mr. McQuaid now only making the claim that bribery may/may not have taken place before his tenure as UCI President?
Secondary question: Since this still leaves to question the manner of corruption, and we reserve our right to define corruption in a way consistent with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. ("FCPA"), can we assume that UCI constitutional bylaws, and all records requiring committee votes, transactions, payments, salaries, bonuses, petty cash, operational expenses and other line-item costs and expenses incurred by the UCI regarding such "acts" will be available during our Forensic Audit? If the use of Grey Manrod Associates Forensic Accounting Department is not accepted, would the UCI be willing to engage with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation to perform such an audit? We would be happy to facilitate such an engagement.
None of this is real and it doesn't make sense to me why NYV would so willingly forfeit their recently acquired status (from the Kimmage transcripts) as a reliable source for interesting info. I realize they revolve around a warped sense of humor but this is only barely funny.
For something a bit more serious...
Floyd discusses retirement with a trusted confidant
For something a bit more serious...
Floyd discusses retirement with a trusted confidant
Granville57 said:
It is funny to see how many people cannot figure out what is a joke.
I'm going to change my nom to Bro Manrod, nickname Woody.
i can't recall when i've been so moved by an interview.Granville57 said:
thank you for sharing.
Granville57 said:
Well, I'm not sure you're right there.
My understanding is that this correspondence was sent to the UCI.
Whether Grey Manrod is a real firm or simply a nom-de-plume of a very ****ed-off former bike racer is another matter entirely. The answer to which is obvious to anyone with a brain. But why can't NYVelocity report that which was actually sent to the UCI? How does that strain their credibility?
Runitout said:
Grey Manrod Associates has a real web page.
Edit to add: not clear how their expertise aligns with Floyd. According to the web page, they specialize in:
Dave.
D-Queued said:
A little "Pronunciation Mediation" would be useful around here, along with some spelling and syntax mediation as well....
On a more serious note, I think you need to look no further than his lawyer's name: "Chade O. Grey" (shade of grey) to get the gist of the NYV stuff.
BotanyBay said:This is why no one will sue anyone:
Like the very famous Thomas Nast cartoon: "Who stole the people's money?--Do tell"
Somebody who can post pictures should post that one!
MacRoadie said:
Ain't that the truth!
Btw, if anyone still has any questions...
http://twitter.com/greymanrod
Runitout said:
They've somehow managed to blur the line between The Onion and Alfred E. Newman on this one (didn't think that was even possible). No one enjoys Floyd's kookiness more than moi, but I choose not to believe any of this the way it's presented. (Does anyone really believe a "law firm" created a mash-up video?
)As I've said several times previously, Floyd's emails always appear in one of two ways: RaceRadio style and WonderLance style. There are a lot of people being tweaked and getting tweaked behind all of this.
Just sayin'...
The nice thing about this is that we have found a way to refer to the former head of WADA without tripping the word filter. Manrod Pound.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 985
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
-
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram