So todays the day...what will the UCI say?
- Thread starter jdtate101
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
jdtate101
Ex-Fatman
- Location
- Boring Birmingham
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!!!"
"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!!!"
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.
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
____
- Location
- The Borough
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 ?
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 ?
But Escartin overlapped on Kelme with Jesus Manzano who accused the team of systematic doping. So definitely tainted.
OP
OP
jdtate101
Ex-Fatman
- Location
- Boring Birmingham
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....
Only a matter of time now until his whole house of cards comes down....
tigger
Über Member
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
Guru
- Location
- Bromsgrove
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
____
- Location
- The Borough
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.
DogTired
Über Member
- Location
- Floating on a sea of vimto.
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
Guru
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
Recyclist
- Location
- Odawa
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.
