Who You Going to Sue now McQuaid ???

[orbeas]

Dear El Presedente McQuaid
You are at present suing Landis for comments about you (UCI) regarding covering up a certain Lance Armstrong's failed dopping tests.
This has now been repeated by Tyler Hamilton, CBS Corp and its reporters as well as people working in your Tax Heaven in Switzerland.
Please let the cyclist worldwide know when you are going to sue these people as your intregrety is clearly going down the toilet.
I really hope that you are implicated in the Feds investigation and end up in jail with the rest of the Armstrong Mafia
to quote 60 mins
"The Swiss lab director has since given a sworn statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). "60 Minutes" has learned that the lab director testified that a representative of the UCI wanted the matter of the suspicious test to go no further. The lab director also testified that the meeting between himself, Bruyneel and Armstrong was arranged by the UCI

Am dying to hear your babbling about this and how you try and get out of it !!

 

[yeahok]

Lance3 Armstrong supports AIDS??

anyone else hear this? it was rumoured that him and Flandis were giving each other AIDS during a rim-job 69er one year and Lance thought it was awesome. anyone heard this?

 

[compete_clean]

This is damming stuff and the blockbuster of last night's story.

 

[Berzin]

This is the bombshell of the whole interview, one that certainly cannot be disputed using the usual apologist strategies, which is to question the integrity of the accuser and downplay Armstrong's guilt as an "everyone was doing it" situation.

 

[sniper]

this also explains why WADA and UCI are not doing a joint appeal against Contador.
WADA knew about the 60 minutes revealings some time ago already.

The question remains: who's gonna sue UCI?

WADA?

 

[Benotti69]

this also explains why WADA and UCI are not doing a joint appeal against Contador.
WADA knew about the 60 minutes revealings some time ago already.

The question remains: who's gonna sue UCI?

WADA?

Pellizotti, might be looking into it, but i reckon he wont. CONI, WADA and AFLD could be good.

 

[Race Radio]

The UCI never sued Landis. The issued a press release but there is no record of any lawsuit in the Swiss courts. It was a lie

 

[HL2037]

The question remains: who's gonna sue UCI?

Maybe Lance will sue UCI for blackmailing him for 25 000 + 100 000?

 

[Grand Tourist]

The UCI never sued Landis. The issued a press release but there is no record of any lawsuit in the Swiss courts. It was a lie

Landis is a 'man of straw' & as such has little to fear from litigation in the swiss courts (or courts in other jurisdictions for that matter).

These revelations are genuinely shocking. Doping is a fact of life in elite cycling (& probably always will be) & I'd know LA & the 'Posties' were dirty but the UCI being complicit is extraordinary. It'd be interesting to know how this profoundly corrupt relationship came about. Who made the 1st move? Does anyone else think the 2001 $25,000 pay off for the Tour De Suisse positive is a bit 'odd'? It strikes me as a paltry sum to 'tidy up' such an enormous transgression.

I think the race organisers, pro teams & national federations should collectively kick this rancid organisation into touch & start from scratch.

 

[sniper]

shedding new light on old positives

Now that we have it black on white that the UCI is/was corrupt to the core, we can speculate about them (read: Hein&Pat) not only deliberately having hidden positives, but also deliberately having created positives.

Two jump to mind:

Hamilton 2004.

Floyd 2006.

others?

 

[thehog]

The UCI never sued Landis. The issued a press release but there is no record of any lawsuit in the Swiss courts. It was a lie

I'd say there will be some shredding going on over there at the UCI. The FBI connection will be scarying the krap out of them at the moment.

Not heard a peep from them today. Will they issue a press release today?

 

[sniper]

shedding new light on old positives

Now that we have it black on white that the UCI is/was corrupt to the core, we can speculate about them (read: Hein&Pat) not only deliberately having hidden positives, but also deliberately having created positives.

Two jump to mind:

Hamilton 2004.

Floyd 2006.

others?

 

[Willy_Voet]

Now that we have it black on white that the UCI is/was corrupt to the core, we can speculate about them (read: Hein&Pat) not only deliberately having hidden positives, but also deliberately having created positives.

Two jump to mind:

Hamilton 2004.

Floyd 2006.

others?

I don't think they had any need to create positives. More like selective release of positives.

 

[Benotti69]

Now that we have it black on white that the UCI is/was corrupt to the core, we can speculate about them (read: Hein&Pat) not only deliberately having hidden positives, but also deliberately having created positives.

Two jump to mind:

Hamilton 2004.

Floyd 2006.

others?

I often wondered whether LA had UCI provide the Floyd positive as he didn't want another american to win the TdF so soon after him.

I have no evidence just a hunch.

 

[roundabout]

I often wondered whether LA had UCI provide the Floyd positive as he didn't want another american to win the TdF so soon after him.

I have no evidence just a hunch.

Talk about shooting himself in the foot (if true and in hindsight).

 

[thehog]

I often wondered whether LA had UCI provide the Floyd positive as he didn't want another american to win the TdF so soon after him.

I have no evidence just a hunch.

This one has been doing the rounds for a long-time. I know Floyd knows there's something still very fishy about his positive -yes he was doping but not the way he tested positive. That’s something he's not talked about much on the basis the Feds are investigating it.

 

[blackcat]

Floyd was using testo. The other tests on his samples in the Tour, using the alternative testing parameters, showed he had been using testosterone. He just got popped for that one.

 

[D-Queued]

I don't think they had any need to create positives. More like selective release of positives.

Like the "drug free" 2009 Tour, when the UCI was the sole agency involved.

And, what about the dispute with USADA over ToC this year?

Dave.

 

[ksmith]

With all this stuff flying around, it looks as though what the AFLD were saying at the tour as more than a grain of truth.

 

[Siriuscat]

Now that we have it black on white that the UCI is/was corrupt to the core, we can speculate about them (read: Hein&Pat) not only deliberately having hidden positives, but also deliberately having created positives.

Two jump to mind:

Hamilton 2004.

Floyd 2006.

others?

Contador 2010???

 

[DomesticDomestique]

Vote to combine thread with "UCI takes on the world."

 

[roundabout]

Contador 2010???

Yes, Armstrong sold them the steak.

 

[ElChingon]

Could the past non-Negative banned riders have a case to sue the UCI? I would think so if the UCI gets implicated.

Subpoena's all around!