# So todays the day...what will the UCI say?



## jdtate101 (22 Oct 2012)

Admit to their mistakes, Implement wholesale changes to improve and clean up the sport, or bury it's head in the sand?

Discuss......


----------



## Noodley (22 Oct 2012)

I'll lay odds that there will be lots of lies.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

Noodley said:


> I'll lay odds that there will be lots of lies.


 
You've read the USADA report then


----------



## jdtate101 (22 Oct 2012)

I know where my money would be bet......"move along..nothing to see here".


----------



## beastie (22 Oct 2012)

Ratify USADA decision, strip Armstrong of titles, appeal 6 month ban for other riders on the basis they should be 2 years, claim UCI is at the forefront of the fight against PED.


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

I don't think the UCI will contest anything. With the whole world looking at them, they will adhere to the USADA judgement. 
They need to address investigating other riders, non-US riders, implicated in the report and what may happen. I'm thinking in particular, Paolo Savoldelli. They have an obligation to investigate given they have evidence of drgu taking.

I think they will announce something more, something likely a bit vague but an attempt to show they can address UCI past failures to deal with this era, or to just wider investigate and acknowledge what happened in the peloton.


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

2112730 said:


> And what will they say to Paul Kimmage?


They'll be after him still I think - the Swiss lab reported that the test people talk about only showed LA had a hematocrit bordering on but not over the illegal 50% level. This happened another time too. But neither situation constituted a failure. So they can argue there was no cover up of a filed test.

The way the UCI dealt with those situations was to invite the rider in to have a chat about why they were so close but on the right side of an arbitrary level that defines legality. How was it possible they innocently ended up barely legal ? The rider would offer his wrists to be slapped in private.

Kimmage though now has a concrete idea of what occured with the tests so he at least can argue about the dosh LA subsequently gave the UCI and argue collusion and corruption.


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

2112752 said:


> But surely they must be aware of how shakey their ground is likely to become. There is a good chance that the details of LA's financial affairs will become increasingly public and that is not going to be good for them.


They have a story about the LA transaction which they can stick to in a law court.

The problem with dropping the Kimmage suit is they accept the accusations of corruption of McQuaid and Verbruggen. McQuaid is not about to resign but he may start to distance himself from Verbruggen.

I don't know - I think we start to find out at 12 and stop speculating ;-)

Edit: or at 10 CET, which is 11 GMT which is 12 BST...

Double edit - getting conflicting reports on the timing...

Triple Edit : at the moment, I have no idea when the press conference will happen - thanks @Bollo ;-)


----------



## subaqua (22 Oct 2012)

ostrich time


----------



## Bollo (22 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> Edit: or at 10 CET, which is 11 GMT which is 12 BST...


10 CET is 9 BST is 8 GMT! My job is a lot about timezones. I am to be avoided at parties.


----------



## Bollo (22 Oct 2012)

subaqua said:


> ostrich time


I think you're right. I'd be surprised if we're any the wiser after the announcement beyond a simple ratification of the USADA decision.


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

Bollo said:


> 10 CET is 9 BST is 8 GMT! My job is a lot about timezones. I am to be avoided at parties.



7 am EDT and 13.00 CET -> That means 12 uk money innit ?


----------



## Bollo (22 Oct 2012)

7am EDT is four hours behind GMT, so 5 hours behind current UK time, which suggests announcement at midday UK time. 10am CET is 9am in the UK, so the two don't tie up.

Run, run while you still have time! There's someone in the kitchen you really need to talk to!!! ;-)


----------



## Davidc (22 Oct 2012)

What subaqua says - sand.


----------



## BalkanExpress (22 Oct 2012)

Looks at UCI website ....


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

UCI won't appeal to CAS - LA's titles to be stripped, according to L'Equipe.


----------



## raindog (22 Oct 2012)

live updates on the Graun 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/22/uci-lance-armstrong-press-conference-live


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/20025271
For live feed


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> UCI won't appeal to CAS - LA's titles to be stripped, according to L'Equipe.


You mean Le Parisien. L'Equipe seems to be ''wait and see.''


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

McQuaid looks very sombre - management committee convened in 2 friday's.
UCI accepts USADA recommendation on LA and other riders regarding sanctions.


----------



## BalkanExpress (22 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> live updates on the Graun
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/22/uci-lance-armstrong-press-conference-live


 
Ta

How silly of me to have been looking at the UCI site for info on the UCI


----------



## raindog (22 Oct 2012)

"I have no intention of resigning." 
GROAN


----------



## just jim (22 Oct 2012)

Shocker.


----------



## Crosstrailer (22 Oct 2012)

'Deserves to be forgotten.......'


----------



## StuAff (22 Oct 2012)

Right decision to accept USADA's verdict. Wrong decisions on absolutely everything else.


----------



## machew (22 Oct 2012)

So now that Lance has been stripped of his titles, who now has won those 7 Tdf
Eg
*1999: Current podium*
1. Lance Armstrong (Sripped of title)
2. Alex Zuelle 
3. Fernando Escartin


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

ffs, McQuaid criticises Ashendon for sniping from the sidelines instead of finding a test for blood doping

McQuaid says cycling will probably never be free from doping.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Oct 2012)

machew said:


> So now that Lance has been stripped of his titles, who now has won those 7 Tdf
> Eg
> *1999: Current podium*
> 1. Lance Armstrong (Sripped of title)
> ...


Left for the management committee to decide on Friday next. I think that's what he said.


----------



## Buddfox (22 Oct 2012)

I still don't understand (whether another organisation has "billions" or not) how a governing body can think it's a good idea to take donations from its pro athletes. Surely this is wrong? I could just about get athlete donating to national body, national body pays funding to governing body - there needs at least to be disintermediation, and better disclosure.


----------



## just jim (22 Oct 2012)

That's that for now. I doubt if Kimmage will be quite so managed as this crowd.


----------



## raindog (22 Oct 2012)

What an effing waste of time. Looks as if we need a revolution from inside the ranks otherwise we're stuck with this dodgy system forever. Hopefully, Millar and Vaughters might get their act together and push for some sort of change.


----------



## jdtate101 (22 Oct 2012)

Well my take on that was:

"Ok we're forced to accept the USADA evidence and strip/ban LA, but no-one's getting fired or resigning here and we won't admit to anything else....thank you, now bugger off!!!"


----------



## Dilbert (22 Oct 2012)

machew said:


> So now that Lance has been stripped of his titles, who now has won those 7 Tdf
> Eg
> *1999: Current podium*
> 1. Lance Armstrong (Sripped of title)
> ...


 
According to Wiki, Escartin is the only rider to share the podium with Armstrong during the 7 tour wins who has not been implicated in a drugs scandal (Zuelle addmitted EPO use while at Festina). I think I read somewhere that ASO had decided just to cross Armstrongs name out and leave it there.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

machew said:


> So now that Lance has been stripped of his titles, who now has won those 7 Tdf
> Eg
> *1999: Current podium*
> 1. Lance Armstrong (Sripped of title)
> ...


 
Prudhomme have said nobody - the titles will be void as there is no-one in the top tier over that period who has not since been implicated in doping. So now Armstrong will probably use a leaf out of Tyler Hamilton's book and call himself the "former winner of seven Tours de France."


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

For the LA case, all that is left is to dot the i's, cross the t's with regards to result implications. There are a good few rounds left.

The UCI know the Padua case is going to implicate a whole raft of ageing but current riders, who have been around under McQuaid's watch. 

Is the Puerto report due too ?

Kimmage will have a good go - it will be healthy to see an independent assessment of Verbruggen's involvement with accepting LA's cash.

Will McQuaid and Verbruggen be able to survive ? Thing is, I think within the UCI, a fair few people will be very scared of McQuaid going but Verbruggen ? What use is he any more ?


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

Dilbert said:


> According to Wiki, Escartin is the only rider to share the podium with Armstrong during the 7 tour wins who has not been implicated in a drugs scandal (Zuelle addmitted EPO use while at Festina). I think I read somewhere that ASO had decided just to cross Armstrongs name out and leave it there.


 
But Escartin overlapped on Kelme with Jesus Manzano who accused the team of systematic doping. So definitely tainted.


----------



## jdtate101 (22 Oct 2012)

I do wonder how long we will have to wait until the first lawsuit is launched against LA by one of his ex sponsors/backers/paymasters. In the land of the lawyers, this has got to be coming soon? I read once about insurance policies paid out if he won each tour (perhaps someone could provide linky??) if they did payout and he's now been "proven" to won them using doping, then surely that's insurance fraud? 

Only a matter of time now until his whole house of cards comes down....


----------



## tigger (22 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> What an effing waste of time. Looks as if we need a revolution from inside the ranks otherwise we're stuck with this dodgy system forever. Hopefully, Millar and Vaughters might get their act together and push for some sort of change.


 
Couldn't agree more. I've no idea why I was so niave as to expect (even a microscopic trace of) a watershed moment...


----------



## Hont (22 Oct 2012)

machew said:


> So now that Lance has been stripped of his titles, who now has won those 7


 
Not Lance at any rate...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tour_de_France_winners#By_riders


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> I do wonder how long we will have to wait until the first lawsuit is launched against LA by one of his ex sponsors/backers/paymasters. In the land of the lawyers, this has got to be coming soon? I read once about insurance policies paid out if he won each tour (perhaps someone could provide linky??) if they did payout and he's now been "proven" to won them using doping, then surely that's insurance fraud?


 
This was gone over in the SCA case and the basic conclusion was the contract didn't require that he didn't cheat to win and therefore whether he doped or not was irrelevant to his right to a payout for winning.


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> I do wonder how long we will have to wait until the first lawsuit is launched against LA by one of his ex sponsors/backers/paymasters. In the land of the lawyers, this has got to be coming soon? I read once about insurance policies paid out if he won each tour (perhaps someone could provide linky??) if they did payout and he's now been "proven" to won them using doping, then surely that's insurance fraud?
> 
> Only a matter of time now until his whole house of cards comes down....


 
SCA paid out for 3 tours, 3rd, 4'th and 5'th, amounting to over 10 million $ in total. I think Tyler said in total LA earned around 19 million $ from all 7 tours. 

Parts of the SCA case are in the USADA report. SCA contested the 3rd payment and lost, not because of an argument about whether LA doped or not (they are the only guys who ever got LA to testify in a court of law to say he didn't dope) but because doping was a moot point in the contract - they were to pay if LA was awarded the titles. 
I think the issue for SCA may be that when they settled they agreed never to contest the case again.

But yes, there can be a good few people requiring cash back although probably not his personal sponsors.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2012)

> Will legal action continue against journalist Paul Kimmage? "The case against Kimmage is nothing to do with Usada and Armstrong," says McQuaid. "It's about a journalist who accused me and my predecessor of being corrupt. It's a straight defamation case." So, yes then.


 
Could this be their [the UCI] eventual downfall?

Kimmage will be sued for defamation.

A few years down the line, something comes out that means one of the UCI lied under oath.

Criminal investigation ensues.

I've got the legalities correct haven't I?


----------



## DogTired (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> This was gone over in the SCA case and the basic conclusion was the contract didn't require that he didn't cheat to win and therefore whether he doped or not was irrelevant to his right to a payout for winning.


 
Nope, the facts have been covered on
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-new-improved-lance-armstrong-discussion-thread.110635/page-56
post 1114 and
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-new-improved-lance-armstrong-discussion-thread.110635/page-57
post 1132.


----------



## meenaghman (22 Oct 2012)

This was an interesting tweet.. BBC sports editor David Bond: "UCI has changed story again on the infamous $100k Armstrong donation. Now says the money wasn't paid until 2007. Previous accounts said 05."


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

The Tour organizers have alreasy said that they will leave the titles void for the years when Armstrong won. I think that's sensible. We know he won. We know he cheated. We also know that lots of other top cyclists cheated (although maybe not as systematically and effectively). Now we need to clear out the people who oversaw this period of organized and systematic cheating and start pro-cycling on a cleaner course. See the reforming the UCI thread.


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

Ten Second summary:


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> Nope, the facts have been covered on
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-new-improved-lance-armstrong-discussion-thread.110635/page-56
> post 1114 and
> http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/the-new-improved-lance-armstrong-discussion-thread.110635/page-57
> post 1132.


 
You mean the facts according to you. Unfortunately as I have pointed out to you before the records say otherwise e.g.

_In response, Armstrong took legal action against SCA Promotions and eventually won on the basis that *the original contract* between that company and Tailwind Sports *didn’t include stipulations about doping*._​​http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ponse-before-deciding-about-legal-action.aspx

*Tailwind/Lance Armstrong v. SCA Promotions (Arbitration, Herman Howry & Breen) - Breach of Contract: ​*
_ This case revolved around allegations that our client, Tailwind/Lance Armstrong, had breached an agreement by taking banned, performance-enhancing substances in his 2004 Tour de France victory. SCA was under contract to pay Lance Armstrong a bonus of $5M if he won the race, which he did. After the arbitration proceedings, but *before the panel issued its ruling, SCA settled the case* by paying Armstrong $7.5 million._​_http://barnesandroberts.com/verdicts.shtml_​​Now it may be that the guy at SCA would not have entered the contract if he had known about the doping allegations but his recourse there is with his lawyers for both failing in their pre-contract due diligence and failing to write appropriate provisions into the contract. Complaining that the other side got an advantage on you in a commercial contract is really complaining about your own incompetence_._

Now you can keep refuting the evidence above but for credibility it will need a bit more than "because I say so" as evidence of your take on what happened.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

Prudhomme has repeated the call for the winners' list to be left blank - oh, and he will be seeking he $3M worth of prize money back from Armstrong.

"This must be remembered as an era without winners."

I agree.


----------



## I'm With Stupid (22 Oct 2012)

It seems to me that whether the contract included stipulations about doping would be irrelevant now. If he got a fine for doping, but was still allowed to keep the titles, then that would be a valid argument, but as of today, he officially didn't win those titles, so any money paid out for him winning could potentially be sued for. I'm not a lawyer, but that would seem to be the case, unless there was something else in the contract or the law specifically to protect him (perhaps a time limit on claims, for example).


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Prudhomme has repeated the call for the winners' list to be left blank - oh, and he will be seeking he $3M worth of prize money back from Armstrong.
> 
> "This must be remembered as an era without winners."
> 
> I agree.


 
We're all on the list of losers.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> We're all on the list of losers.


 
Speak for yourself!


----------



## thom (22 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Speak for yourself!


 

I was originally going to say we could put LA at the top of the list of losers but really, taking pot shots is missing the point. It's completely over for him, he'll spend the next part of his life in court, maybe jail but away from cycling.
The sport if left with a toxic legacy.

It's still really screwed up in some parts - Samuel Sanchez said today that LA shouldn't be sanctioned because he hadn't failed a test, Boonen said yesterday something like LA was the only one who could really say whether he cheated or not. They still just don't get it.


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 Oct 2012)

This could get interesting if LA ever decides "What the hell, I might as well fess up"...and comes clean about the UCI donations and exactly who knew what about his doping and concealed it.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

I'm With Stupid said:


> It seems to me that whether the contract included stipulations about doping would be irrelevant now. If he got a fine for doping, but was still allowed to keep the titles, then that would be a valid argument, but as of today, he officially didn't win those titles, so any money paid out for him winning could potentially be sued for. I'm not a lawyer, but that would seem to be the case, unless there was something else in the contract or the law specifically to protect him (perhaps a time limit on claims, for example).


 
I'm not party to the SCA settlement agreement but I would fully expect it to include a clause preventing it ever being reopened or revisited. Its kind of a standard clause in settlement agreements otherwise its only settled until the losing party decides to go back to Court which could be the very next day.

On the TdeF front, is there a precedent with other riders on the podium like Ulrich returning their prize money?


----------



## MichaelM (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I'm not party to the SCA settlement agreement but I would fully expect it to include a clause preventing it ever being reopened or revisited. Its kind of a standard clause in settlement agreements otherwise its only settled until the losing party decides to go back to Court which could be the very next day.
> 
> On the TdeF front, is there a precedent with other riders on the podium like Ulrich returning their prize money?


 
Please can we have our cash back?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (22 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> Please can we have our cash back?


 
$3M to ASO, $7.5M to SCA... it's just starting to look like this might be a little bit expensive for Armstrong.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

MichaelM said:


> Please can we have our cash back?


 
Lets see how it develops. Making a demand and threatening to start legal action are, as I'm sure you are aware, very different to having a right and winning a case. We might find out rather soon whether there was a clause in the settlement agreement or not.


----------



## yello (22 Oct 2012)

And will you acknowledge egg on your face? 

Jeez, you love this 'clause in the contract' nonsense don't you? You cannot contract out of the law, simple. So expect The Sunday Times to take action too.


----------



## jdtate101 (22 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> This could get interesting if LA ever decides "What the hell, I might as well fess up"...and comes clean about the UCI donations and exactly who knew what about his doping and concealed it.


 
Ooo I see pigs flying past my window. LA fess up? Never gonna happen. His ego is just too damn big for that, plus any admission of guilt would open the floodgates of litigation. As it stands right now, some people may sue him, but they better be damn sure they can prove their case AND pay for it. An admission of guilt would go al long way to removing both of these barriers.


----------



## tigger (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> Lets see how it develops. Making a demand and threatening to start legal action are, as I'm sure you are aware, very different to having a right and winning a case. We might find out rather soon whether there was a clause in the settlement agreement or not.



Now now Redlight, I've warned you about speculating on matters no one is privy to before. All you know is that your idol was a doper and he lied specifically about this in order to be paid performance bonuses. Is that correct?


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> Now now Redlight, I've warned you about speculating on matters no one is privy to before. All you know is that your idol was a doper and he lied specifically about this in order to be paid performance bonuses. Is that correct?


 
Its not a question of whether he doped or not or lied or not. That has already been addressed in the SCA/Tailwind case and SCA settled out of Court because they were not found to be valid reasons to annul the contract. And I would be surprised if the settlement contract entered into by SCA as a result does not bar them doing what they are threatening to do. And if it does its a matter of contract law again not what Armstrong did or didn't do.

And since this whole thread is full of all sorts of speculations by all sorts of people and you are not the thread moderator, your "warning" has about as much force as a fart in a hurricane.


----------



## DogTired (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> You mean the facts according to you. Unfortunately as I have pointed out to you before the records say otherwise e.g.
> 
> _In response, Armstrong took legal action against SCA Promotions and eventually won on the basis that *the original contract* between that company and Tailwind Sports *didn’t include stipulations about doping*._​
> Now you can keep refuting the evidence above but for credibility it will need a bit more than "because I say so" as evidence of your take on what happened.


 
I think you'll find that I quoted from Bob Hamman, company president of SCA, who initiated the proceedings by not paying the contract. And again the contract didnt have stipulations about doping, or drinking coffee or cutting hedges.

There was no settlement clause. SCA just paid up the contract with interest and costs. They tried not to have to pay the contract in place, lost, so paid up on the contract.


----------



## Red Light (22 Oct 2012)

DogTired said:


> I think you'll find that I quoted from Bob Hamman, company president of SCA, who initiated the proceedings by not paying the contract. And again the contract didnt have stipulations about doping, or drinking coffee or cutting hedges.
> 
> There was no settlement clause. SCA just paid up the contract with interest and costs. They tried not to have to pay the contract in place, lost, so paid up on the contract.


 
I would be very surprised after having gone through the whole process that there wasn't a settlement agreement at the end of it. If there isn't then Armstrong's lawyers have been seriously delinquent. But maybe you are right and they were. Time will tell.

And as for drinking coffee and cutting hedges, if there were no clauses in the contract that gave termination rights for doing those then you can't use them to avoid paying out on the contract. Ditto doping.


----------



## Smokin Joe (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I would be very surprised after having gone through the whole process that there wasn't a settlement agreement at the end of it. If there isn't then Armstrong's lawyers have been seriously delinquent. But maybe you are right and they were. Time will tell.
> 
> And as for drinking coffee and cutting hedges, if there were no clauses in the contract that gave termination rights for doing those then you can't use them to avoid paying out on the contract. Ditto doping.


Armstrong got paid because he was declared official winner of the tour. Because he is now found to have doped those wins have been taken away from him, which is why SCM are taking legal action to recover the money. Their lawyers are not stupid, they would not pursue the matter unless they thought they could win.


----------



## DogTired (22 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I would be very surprised after having gone through the whole process that there wasn't a settlement agreement at the end of it. If there isn't then Armstrong's lawyers have been seriously delinquent. But maybe you are right and they were. Time will tell.
> 
> And as for drinking coffee and cutting hedges, if there were no clauses in the contract that gave termination rights for doing those then you can't use them to avoid paying out on the contract. Ditto doping.


 
Which is why they lost the case. Why would there be a settlement agreement? The conclusion was that the contract was valid and had to be paid so SCA paid the contract, interest and costs as per any disputed contract.

Its easy to confuse cases where damages were included which LA's lawyers often sought when people accused him of being a drugs cheat. Then there may be a separate settlement agreement. It would be extremely unlikely that Armstrong's lawyers (all of them) were seriously "delinquent" or, as you probably meant to write, undiligent.


----------



## thom (23 Oct 2012)

I bet Lance feels a prick now


----------



## mickle (23 Oct 2012)

thom said:


> I bet Lance feels a prick now


Boom tish.


----------



## tigger (23 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> . And I would be surprised if the settlement contract entered ....


 
Speculation...


----------



## tigger (23 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> I would be very surprised...


 
And again. You've made the same speculative point 3 times in one page!


----------



## PpPete (23 Oct 2012)

Red Light said:


> *Its not a question of whether he doped or not or lied or not*. That has already been addressed in the SCA/Tailwind case and SCA settled out of Court because they were not found to be valid reasons to annul the contract. And I would be surprised if the settlement contract entered into by SCA as a result does not bar them doing what they are threatening to do. And if it does its a matter of contract law again not what Armstrong did or didn't do.
> 
> And since this whole thread is full of all sorts of speculations by all sorts of people and you are not the thread moderator, your "warning" has about as much force as a fart in a hurricane. * another thread*


 
Er ... guys, I thought this was supposed to a thread about UCI reaction?


----------



## Andrew_P (23 Oct 2012)

I wonder if payments are going in the opposite direction now? Lancey honey $100k to keep stum?


----------



## Alun (23 Oct 2012)

Ironic that ASO have asked for the prize money back from the 7 "wins". Doesn't the TdF winner normally distribute the prize money to the others in the team? ie the same people who grassed him up in the first place


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Oct 2012)

The pot's started calling the kettles black -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...yd-Landis-and-Tyler-Hamilton-as-scumbags.html


----------



## just jim (23 Oct 2012)

Tyler Hamilton's response:

"Pat McQuaid's comments expose the hypocrisy of his leadership and demonstrate why he is incapable of any meaningful change," Hamilton wrote in a statement.

"Instead of seizing an opportunity to instil hope for the next generation of cyclists, he continues to point fingers, shift blame and attack those who speak out, tactics that are no longer effective. Pat McQuaid has no place in cycling."

Correct.


----------



## Scoosh (23 Oct 2012)

Don't you just love PM's rant here :


> "What does he [Hamilton] do now? Writes a book just before the USADA report is announced and is making money left right and centre. *What good is he doing the sport? He’s on a personal mission to make money for himself.”*


Pots and kettles, indeed ...


----------



## 400bhp (23 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> The pot's started calling the kettles black -
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...yd-Landis-and-Tyler-Hamilton-as-scumbags.html


 
I've come to one conclusion about pro cycling. Most of the people involved in the sport are thick as two short planks.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> I've come to one conclusion about pro cycling. Most of the people involved in the sport are thick as two short planks.


and greedy, egotistical, avaricious planks at that.

fugginsackemall.


----------



## rich p (23 Oct 2012)

I think Verbruggen is mentally challenged.


----------



## thom (23 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> I've come to one conclusion about pro cycling. Most of the people involved in the sport are thick as two short planks.


I think they're institutionalised into the world of cycle/sport administration and aren't the smartest tools in the box.
Looking briefly at their backgrounds, it's clear that they require fresh blood (no pun intended this time).

The saddest thing is that within the current governance structure, McQuaid might be as good as you can get.
I think to change this, external pressures need to be brought to bear, either through Swiss laws forcing them to change aspects of how they are administered, or from WADA or IOC pressure.

An English guy I met living in Italy told me the problem with Berlusconi wasn't that he was a corrupt joker but that all the other possibilities were worse than him. I fear (as I think @oldroadman has suggested), that there are no decent alternatives within the UCI currently and that external appointments are exceedingly difficult to do within the current structures.


----------



## Longshot (23 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> Their lawyers are not stupid, they would not pursue the matter unless they thought they could win.


----------



## martint235 (23 Oct 2012)

The UCI are now saying that by acting as they have (backing USADA) they now have the moral authority to lead cycling. There's to be a meeting on Friday to decide the way forward. On the agenda is the 2000 Olympic TT result, claiming back Armstrong's prize money and...... reducing the size of the teams (how will this help?)

I enjoy watching cycling (as well as rugby and some football) but why do sports' governing bodies all seem to be entirely divorced from the realities of their respective sports? Nero and Rome burning always seems to spring to mind. McQuaid et al lining their pockets whilst continually holding their hands up and saying "We did what we thought was best" and "It wasn't out fault guv"


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> I enjoy watching cycling (as well as rugby and some football) but *why do sports' governing bodies all seem to be entirely divorced from the realities of their respective sports*? Nero and Rome burning always seems to spring to mind. McQuaid et al* lining their pockets* whilst continually holding their hands up and saying "We did what we thought was best" and "It wasn't out fault guv"


and there's your answer.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Oct 2012)

I don't know if this is the right thread, but I wonder if now is the time that sports are properly regulated.

The last 20 odd years has seen sport change from being a pastime/sport to big business.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> The UCI are now saying that by acting as they have (backing USADA) they now have the moral authority to lead cycling. There's to be a meeting on Friday to decide the way forward. On the agenda is the 2000 Olympic TT result, claiming back Armstrong's prize money and...... reducing the size of the teams (how will this help?)
> 
> I enjoy watching cycling (as well as rugby and some football) but why do sports' governing bodies all seem to be entirely divorced from the realities of their respective sports? Nero and Rome burning always seems to spring to mind. McQuaid et al lining their pockets whilst continually holding their hands up and saying "We did what we thought was best" and "It wasn't out fault guv"


 
Every other thing I read on the whole debacle calls for an overhaul of the UCI in various degrees.


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> I don't know if this is the right thread, but I wonder if now is the time that sports are properly regulated.
> 
> The last 20 odd years has seen sport change from being a pastime/sport to big business.


That process started over 100 years ago. It's just a question of scale.


----------



## 400bhp (23 Oct 2012)

I know - but big business has really come into it's own recently.

Multi Million dollar endorsments from advertising being the main feature.

Too much bloody money flocking to too few.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (23 Oct 2012)

Good well written perspective from Robert Millar here


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Oct 2012)

400bhp said:


> Could this be their [the UCI] eventual downfall?
> 
> Kimmage will be sued for defamation.
> 
> ...


you would have, but for one small consideration.

Switzerland.

See also FIFA, IOC

As Thom and others have said, Pat and Hein can't be got rid of just like that. It may be that other sponsors will follow the Rabobank example (I'm absolutely convinced that Rabo were pointing the finger at the UCI), and, if the dosh to the smaller national federations dries up there'll be some squeaking

It may be that national bodies could decide to withdraw. I'd love to know what BC have got to say about this.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Good well written perspective from Robert Millar here


 
Great piece. Really excellent - it seems quite clear in retrospect that the 50% haemocrit level was an invitation to dope, given that is was already so high above the natural highest levels. There's a simple answer to this one: reduce the permitted levels to something near the high normal levels (45% would be generous but much safer if health is what you are worried about) plus really put the biological passport system to work on this and other base values.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Switzerland.


 
Yes, absolutely. Switzerland is the absolute centre of global corruption - the country is built on the profits of market manipulation, money-laundering, fraud, dictatorship, theft and genocide - yet it's such a prim and proper place which would never tolerate any of that to occur openly in Switzerland itself.


----------



## tigger (23 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Good well written perspective from Robert Millar here



A great article which sums it up in all its doom and gloom. I didn't know Robert Millar had been found, last I heard he was a reclusive transsexual!?


----------



## tigger (23 Oct 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Great piece. Really excellent - it seems quite clear in retrospect that the 50% haemocrit level was an invitation to dope, given that is was already so high above the natural highest levels. There's a simply answer to this one: reduce the permitted levels to something near the high normal levels (45% would be generous but much safer if health is what you are worried about) plus really put the biological passport system to work on this and other base values.



I was thinking exactly the same thing whilst reading that, reduce to 45%


----------



## raindog (23 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> I didn't know Robert Millar had been found, last I heard he was a reclusive transsexual!?


That may well be, but he's been doing that blog on CN for some time


----------



## Flying_Monkey (23 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> A great article which sums it up in all its doom and gloom. I didn't know Robert Millar had been found, last I heard he was a reclusive transsexual!?


 
He was never lost, he knew exactly where he was. The rest of the speculation is apparently not what he wants, so how about we leave it out?


----------



## tigger (23 Oct 2012)

raindog said:


> That may well be, but he's been doing that blog on CN for some time


 
Great, I'll catch up on some of his reading. My first proper bike was a Robert Millar Peugeot ;-] 

(Oh, and does anyone know why iPads don't gave emoticons?)


----------



## Norm (23 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> (Oh, and does anyone know why iPads don't gave emoticons?)


Because evangelists have no emotion.  There are issues with the way that the posting box appears on Safari browser on the iOS. I think it should appear if you use another browser, or, what I've done is learn the codes (words like giggle and thumbsup and shy etc wrapped in :: ) of the emots you use most frequently.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (23 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> A great article which sums it up in all its doom and gloom. I didn't know Robert Millar had been found, last I heard he was a reclusive transsexual!?


Dinnae believe everything you read in the papers


----------



## Smokin Joe (23 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> A great article which sums it up in all its doom and gloom. I didn't know Robert Millar had been found, last I heard he was a reclusive transsexual!?


He isn't.


----------



## tigger (23 Oct 2012)

Strathlubnaig said:


> Dinnae believe everything you read in the papers



Aye. In fact I read this in his biog by Richard Moore I think? If memory serves Moore was uncertain about whether there was any substance to it?

Anyway, no need to debate it here I suppose. Sorry I mentioned it...


----------



## 400bhp (23 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> you would have, but for one small consideration.
> 
> Switzerland.
> 
> ...


 
Gah..

Not that stupid are they.


----------



## martint235 (23 Oct 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> you would have, but for one small consideration.
> 
> Switzerland.
> 
> ...


Sorry but I think BC is as complicit in this as the FA is in the behaviour of FIFA, ie let's not upset the applecart. 

Sponsors with almost national affiliation such as Rabobank and hopefully Sky are the only hope really unless ASO can be persuaded to lead and I'm not sure they are better than the UCI


----------



## Bollo (23 Oct 2012)

It looks like the UCI say one thing at the big conference and then decide to back-pedal just a little bit in the paperwork.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/oct/23/lance-armstrong-appeal-usada-uci

Apologies if this has already been posted


----------



## johnr (23 Oct 2012)

They are, at the very best, a petty bunch of self-serving b@st@rrrrdz.

dellzeq, on the other hand, may be on to something. Move the UCI from Geneva to, say, New Delhi and watch the resignations flood in. Or Wolverhampton. Or Sofia.


----------



## 400bhp (24 Oct 2012)

johnr said:


> They are, at the very best, a petty bunch of self-serving b@st@rrrrdz.
> 
> dellzeq, on the other hand, may be on to something. Move the UCI from Geneva to, say, New Delhi and watch the resignations flood in. *Or Wolverhampton*. Or Sofia.


 
Come on - we wouldn't wish that on our worse enemy would we.


----------



## rich p (24 Oct 2012)

martint235 said:


> Sorry but I think BC is as complicit in this as the FA is in the behaviour of FIFA, ie let's not upset the applecart.


 
You should read this to find out what Brian Cookson really thinks...

... http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/02/brian-cookson-asks-sir-chris-hoy-to-run-for-uci-president/

*“Look, I sit on this ridiculous committee that might as well be 14 stones sitting around a boardroom with the biggest rock McQuaid at the head of the table. Do we get an opinion? Absolutely not"*


----------



## sdr gb (24 Oct 2012)

Apologies if this has been linked to on another thread but Pat McQuaid gave an interview yesterday on Irish radio.


----------



## philipbh (24 Oct 2012)

tigger said:


> I was thinking exactly the same thing whilst reading that, reduce to 45%


 
I cant agree with you and FM on this based on one blood test I had that happened to include a Haematocrit Level

Result: 47% - there goes my ambition to be an Elite Rider


----------



## bof (24 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> You should read this to find out what Brian Cookson really thinks...
> 
> ... http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/02/brian-cookson-asks-sir-chris-hoy-to-run-for-uci-president/
> 
> *“Look, I sit on this ridiculous committee that might as well be 14 stones sitting around a boardroom with the biggest rock McQuaid at the head of the table. Do we get an opinion? Absolutely not"*


 
It maybe (I have no idea) but the site is headlined "satire", sadly.


----------



## rich p (24 Oct 2012)

bof said:


> It maybe (I have no idea) but the site is headlined "satire", sadly.


 Damn, I thought I'd hook someone!
Here's the real Cookson thoughts!
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20121023-about-bc-static-Message-from-Brian-Cookson-0


----------



## Smokin Joe (24 Oct 2012)

This article in CW details the financial difficulties facing Armstrong, which could see the fortune he has amassed wiped out -

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/535289/armstrong-s-problems-have-only-just-begun.html

The UCI must be crapping themselves, should Lance be backed into a corner where he has nothing left to lose and is only left with the choice between humiliation and war he could decide to reveal where the bodies are buried.


----------



## dellzeqq (24 Oct 2012)

rich p said:


> Damn, I thought I'd hook someone!
> Here's the real Cookson thoughts!
> http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/20121023-about-bc-static-Message-from-Brian-Cookson-0


 those aren't thoughts. Thoughts are the product of mental effort.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (24 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> I cant agree with you and FM on this based on one blood test I had that happened to include a Haematocrit Level
> 
> Result: 47% - there goes my ambition to be an Elite Rider


 
There are always medical exceptions - as there are for particular drugs. With the biological passport, it should be easier to establish what counts as 'normal' for each person. Should be.


----------



## tigger (24 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> I cant agree with you and FM on this based on one blood test I had that happened to include a Haematocrit Level
> 
> Result: 47% - there goes my ambition to be an Elite Rider


 
Maybe you're a natural . Have a word with Brailsford


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Oct 2012)

Smokin Joe said:


> This article in CW details the financial difficulties facing Armstrong, which could see the fortune he has amassed wiped out -
> 
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/535289/armstrong-s-problems-have-only-just-begun.html
> 
> The UCI must be crapping themselves, should Lance be backed into a corner where he has nothing left to lose and is only left with the choice between humiliation and war he could decide to reveal where the bodies are buried.


He'll just "write the checks". Net worth $100+ million, plenty of rich folk prepared to help bail an all-American hero out, hell the US public are so gullible if he started a fighting fund he'd have enough to pay everything back in less than a year. I doubt he's losing sleep over the financials side of things. Perjury charges on the other hand..... but then there probably isn't a DA in the US who'd (be allowed to) prosecute or a jury who would convict.


----------



## woohoo (24 Oct 2012)

philipbh said:


> I cant agree with you and FM on this based on one blood test I had that happened to include a Haematocrit Level
> 
> Result: 47% - there goes my ambition to be an Elite Rider


 
Me too. Over the last 5 years, my hematocrit level has varied between 40% and 47% with no change in diet, exercise levels and non-use of PEDs  . The local health authority (or whatever it's called) define low hematocrit level as below 40% and high as above 54%.


----------



## andrew_s (24 Oct 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Perjury charges on the other hand..... but then there probably isn't a DA in the US who'd (be allowed to) prosecute or a jury who would convict.


I believe the US statute of limitations for Perjury is expired (here), and I don't know he's done anything that would reset it (unlike the cycling one).


----------

