Kins
Über Member
- Location
- Ystradgynlais, S. Wales
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/21359550
First $12 million + punitives, let the money train begin.
First $12 million + punitives, let the money train begin.
The new improved Lance Armstrong discussion thread.*
- Thread starter mickle
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Noodley
Guest
Always right nobbers.
There'll certainly be a few people interested in the outcome, that's for real.
Hotblack Desiato
Well-Known Member
Yes, there's this book about the TdF I bought that now turns out to be largely fiction, for a start.
The problem remains though whether the contract was fulfilled at the time
Not pleasant but the outcome is far from assured
Fraudulently.
Absolutely, but it is not that simple in a court
Edited.. Let me explain
The contract was eith a third party (Tailwind) who are the ones who paid Armstrong, there were no payments made to Armstrong by SCA
The payments were made to Tailwind as a separate entity
So there may not be the direct link to Armstrong needed to regain the payments. SCA may fail if they are (technically not morally) suing the right body
Finally there is also some doubt whether the time scale precludes the case as well
http://www.cyclingnews.com/blogs/jo...e-armstrong-and-heres-how-we-can-fight-doping
What about this oh wise ones?
What about this oh wise ones?
You are right of course. None of us can know/predict how a judge will call it. One can only hope that any judge is able to see through smoke and mirrors and recognise vicarious liability.
thom
____
- Location
- The Borough
A Michael Ashendon press release about Lance in the 2009 TdF and the UCI's approach to looking at his blood profile.
Radchenister
Veteran
- Location
- Avon
Ashenden's 'advantage' is that he appears to be acting with integrity, working with facts, like you would expect from a scientist (IMO) - quite what 'game' the UCI are playing is baffling to me? They really should hold a mirror up and have a word with themselves.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-at-loggerheads-over-Texans-test-results.aspx
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-at-loggerheads-over-Texans-test-results.aspx
Kins
Über Member
- Location
- Ystradgynlais, S. Wales
Nice article, shame I don't think it will happen any time soon.
Does seem weird how they are handling it. Do they think that a scientist won't have records of tests he carried out? Now, do you think they'll give permission for the other scientists on the panel to open their records? I hope so, but I doubt it.
Radchenister
Veteran
- Location
- Avon
He didn't carry out the tests himself, it's more a case of interpreting and verifying the data he was offered a snap shot of.
Hopefully you would think Ashenden, as a Doctor, would always aim to be balanced with his stance and give over a reasoned professional opinion; which is why, as the over riding professional body, bouncing around personal comments to undermine his position is a high risk game (IMO). They are boxing into corners now - all very personal; it looks to the outsider like they (UCI) are going after destroying the man's credibility.
It's a cliché but people say 'you can't cheat an honest man', in this case I use it meaning he looks like he has nothing to hide ... I may be proven wrong of course but my gut instinct is that Ashenden is seeing things fairly clearly, he comes over as reasoned and motivated by clarity and truth. Whether the problem is McQuaid himself and to what extent the UCI in general need to be taken to task is debatable, as it might cause more damage than good but IMO Ashenden most likely genuinely believes that the UCI need to be challenged.
To me it looks like he is aiming to be precise and understand the facts behind the handling of data, whilst the UCI appear to be happy with further blurring the shades of grey that they seem to have been operating in, which makes you wonder if perhaps they still do need to tighten things further?
Usually when a lone critic takes this type of stance against an organisation they are portrayed to be a trouble maker, moaner, crack-pot etc. and very often they are a bit insular and single minded to the point of being blinkered; it looks like that's the twist that UCI were aiming at here, although they perhaps have misjudged Ashenden and what this looks like to the rest of the outside world?
That's my 2p on it all anyway.
Hopefully you would think Ashenden, as a Doctor, would always aim to be balanced with his stance and give over a reasoned professional opinion; which is why, as the over riding professional body, bouncing around personal comments to undermine his position is a high risk game (IMO). They are boxing into corners now - all very personal; it looks to the outsider like they (UCI) are going after destroying the man's credibility.
It's a cliché but people say 'you can't cheat an honest man', in this case I use it meaning he looks like he has nothing to hide ... I may be proven wrong of course but my gut instinct is that Ashenden is seeing things fairly clearly, he comes over as reasoned and motivated by clarity and truth. Whether the problem is McQuaid himself and to what extent the UCI in general need to be taken to task is debatable, as it might cause more damage than good but IMO Ashenden most likely genuinely believes that the UCI need to be challenged.
To me it looks like he is aiming to be precise and understand the facts behind the handling of data, whilst the UCI appear to be happy with further blurring the shades of grey that they seem to have been operating in, which makes you wonder if perhaps they still do need to tighten things further?
Usually when a lone critic takes this type of stance against an organisation they are portrayed to be a trouble maker, moaner, crack-pot etc. and very often they are a bit insular and single minded to the point of being blinkered; it looks like that's the twist that UCI were aiming at here, although they perhaps have misjudged Ashenden and what this looks like to the rest of the outside world?
That's my 2p on it all anyway.
