Hincapie too
Comments
-
ddraver wrote:So will cyclingfans.com or steephill.tv be giving us illegal CBS feeds tonght then?
someone put it on cycle torrents.nl"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
--
Obsessed is just a word elephants use to describe the dedicated. http://markliversedge.blogspot.com0 -
No tA Doctor wrote:
I'm not even sure what machinery the UCI have to deal with a confession from a rider they have no positive results from.
From the WADA code:
"Use or Attempted Use may also be
established by other reliable means
such as admissions by the Athlete,
witness statements, documentary
evidence, conclusions drawn from
longitudinal profiling, or other
analytical information"
So that's the equivalent of a positive test, except we'll be spared the subsequent circus of demented excuses about booze, vanishing twins and tainted beef.
WADA code, essential reading for anyone commenting here IMO.
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World ... 009_EN.pdfJohn Stevenson0 -
Do I get cbs on sky?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Does anyone have any links for the show?0
-
0
-
Excellent article.
I think the Bono tweet came just after Landis.0 -
afx237vi wrote:
"What is also clear is that fears about professional cyclists refusing to speak about their doping were misplaced. “The problem,” said one source close to the investigation, “was not getting them to talk but to stop them crying so they could continue talking.”0 -
[quote- but they also expect to believe what they have paid to read. [/quote]
Nonsense.
If I buy The Sun or The News(Ha) of the World or any of the redtops the last thing I would expect, is to read the truth.
The truth just doesn't have commercial appeal.0 -
Cyclopath wrote:[quote- but they also expect to believe what they have paid to read.
Nonsense.
If I buy The Sun or The News(Ha) of the World or any of the redtops the last thing I would expect, is to read the truth.
The truth just doesn't have commercial appeal.[/quote]
The truth can hire lawyers though- why would Murdoch want to pay out millions in libel damages for printing blatant lies. It's the stuff that never makes the papers that is interesting...0 -
hmm, dunno what I did there. Oops0
-
afx237vi wrote:
Good old Walsh
. Interesting to see the reference to the Sunday Times lawyers re-visiting the settlement of that libel suit. Would SCA Promotions be able to claim those bonuses back or does stuff like that come under statute of limitations? 0 -
Pollys Bott wrote:afx237vi wrote:
Good old Walsh . Interesting to see the reference to the Sunday Times lawyers re-visiting the settlement of that libel suit. Would SCA Promotions be able to claim those bonuses back or does stuff like that come under statute of limitations?
The SCA case came down to the fact that Armstrong was pronounced winner of the TDFs that they had covered him for.
So I reckon they'd probably need him to be stripped of his titles before they could do anything.Scottish and British...and a bit French0 -
I wonder where Armstrong goes from here?
Does anyone have an idea about how much wealth Armstong has and how much he stands to lose, at least from legal stuff, either fighting it, or companies etc expecting money back/sueing?0 -
dulldave wrote:Pollys Bott wrote:afx237vi wrote:
Good old Walsh . Interesting to see the reference to the Sunday Times lawyers re-visiting the settlement of that libel suit. Would SCA Promotions be able to claim those bonuses back or does stuff like that come under statute of limitations?
The SCA case came down to the fact that Armstrong was pronounced winner of the TDFs that they had covered him for.
So I reckon they'd probably need him to be stripped of his titles before they could do anything.
It may be my faulty memory, but weren't those win bonuses dependant on the wins being clean; and they initially refused to pay because of the Andreu / McIlvain allegations in the early 90's? So if it then turns out that they paid out under false pretences, as Walsh seems to suggest that The Sunday Times had to..? And would that constitute fraud?0 -
IIRC, the case was decided on the grounds that the contract only specified wins, so the legality or otherwise of those wins was irrelevant to that case, however interesting it might have been to sporting bodies, fans and Internet Forum People.Pollys Bott wrote:dulldave wrote:Pollys Bott wrote:afx237vi wrote:
Good old Walsh . Interesting to see the reference to the Sunday Times lawyers re-visiting the settlement of that libel suit. Would SCA Promotions be able to claim those bonuses back or does stuff like that come under statute of limitations?
The SCA case came down to the fact that Armstrong was pronounced winner of the TDFs that they had covered him for.
So I reckon they'd probably need him to be stripped of his titles before they could do anything.
It may be my faulty memory, but weren't those win bonuses dependant on the wins being clean; and they initially refused to pay because of the Andreu / McIlvain allegations in the early 90's? So if it then turns out that they paid out under false pretences, as Walsh seems to suggest that The Sunday Times had to..? And would that constitute fraud?N00b commuter with delusions of competence
FCN 11 - If you scalp me, do I not bleed?0 -
Confused.com - if the bonuses were solely for winning, and he won, then why did they refuse to pay him and thus get taken to court?0
-
Pollys Bott wrote:Confused.com - if the bonuses were solely for winning, and he won, then why did they refuse to pay him and thus get taken to court?
Because winning means winning within the bounds of the sports rules. SCA considered that if he'd doped to win, he wasn't playing by the rules and therefore the contract was void.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I've often wondered about this too, although for different reasons. Is LA the only man ever to find an insurance company willing to essentially bet with him, as overwhelming favourite, that he wouldn' win a given event or are loads of sportsmen at this?
Whats in it for the bookie, i mean insurance company."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:I've often wondered about this too, although for different reasons. Is LA the only man ever to find an insurance company willing to essentially bet with him, as overwhelming favourite, that he wouldn' win a given event or are loads of sportsmen at this?
Whats in it for the bookie, i mean insurance company.
The stake, I mean policy payment
0 -
dougzz wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:I've often wondered about this too, although for different reasons. Is LA the only man ever to find an insurance company willing to essentially bet with him, as overwhelming favourite, that he wouldn' win a given event or are loads of sportsmen at this?
Whats in it for the bookie, i mean insurance company.
The stake, I mean policy payment
Am I to assume that, in that case, LA managed to find the one bookie (sorry, Insurance Agent) on the earth who didn't know he was going to win the Tour in any given year? Cos the odds you'd have got on him anywhere else after 1999 would have been so poor you'd have been better sticking it in the bank!
He get's away with cheating and corruption for a decade, gets an Olsen twin toe up and manages to find the gamblers holy grail, an idiot bookmaker... Some guys have all the luck."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Some guys have all the luck.
He did have pretty agressive cancer.
I'd dump all his winnings and success to avoid having that, survival or not.0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:
Am I to assume that, in that case, LA managed to find the one bookie (sorry, Insurance Agent) on the earth who didn't know he was going to win the Tour in any given year? Cos the odds you'd have got on him anywhere else after 1999 would have been so poor you'd have been better sticking it in the bank!
He get's away with cheating and corruption for a decade, gets an Olsen twin toe up and manages to find the gamblers holy grail, an idiot bookmaker... Some guys have all the luck.
I don't remember the precise detail, but it was something like the team would pay him a bonus of $5M is he won 5 TdFs. So instead of risk the $5M themselves the insured with SCA who specialise in that sort thing. It's easy to forget even with the doping the luck and stamina required to win 5 in a row. Don't forget in 2000 Ulrich was seen as a serious threat, not to mention others. It's easy to be smart in hindsight. Also, for all we know the policy cost $1million or something, thus being a fair reflection of the odds.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Pollys Bott wrote:Confused.com - if the bonuses were solely for winning, and he won, then why did they refuse to pay him and thus get taken to court?
Because winning means winning within the bounds of the sports rules. SCA considered that if he'd doped to win, he wasn't playing by the rules and therefore the contract was void.
Which was kinda the point I was trying to make: so given that they were forced to pay up and it now appears that they were right all along, would they be able to claim the money back? It's also fraud, is it not? Lying for financial gain?0 -
Just finishd reading 'from lance to landis'. the panel that decided to case heard all the testimony from the andrue's, heard lemonds tape of mcillvain admitting that lance told he doctors he took PEDs, then decided SCA had to pay out as there was no cheating clause.
They at no time said that there was insufficient evidence that lance doped, they didn't say he was innocent, just that the contract was valid as the UCI had confirmed the wins.
Now, if those wins are taken away, it's a different issue.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
As an aside, do you think the UCI will remove wins that far back? It's not like the runners up were clean either:
1999 - Zulle
2000 - Ullrich
2001 - Ullrich
2002 - Beloki (OK, so cleared of involvement in Puerto by the Spanish authorities, but still)
2003 - Ullrich
2004 - Kloden
2005 - Basso
Andy0 -
andrewjoseph wrote:Just finishd reading 'from lance to landis'. the panel that decided to case heard all the testimony from the andrue's, heard lemonds tape of mcillvain admitting that lance told he doctors he took PEDs, then decided SCA had to pay out as there was no cheating clause.
The judge didn't decide anything, they went to arbitration, now you could well decide that SCA did that because they thought they'd lose - however no judge ruled on the contract.Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/0
