Nice one, Pat
This is so dimwitted - even by the standards of these two venal cretins - that they must be doing it to try to distract peoples attention from something else. (They've probably decided to give Bertie a medal and Swiss citizenship)
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... om-kimmage
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... om-kimmage
'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
0
Comments
-
FFS! There are so many reports of shady dealings surrounding the UCI that I'd be amazed if at least some of it weren't true. I wish I was rich enough to bank roll Paul Kimmage's legal fight against them. Dirty f*ckers!0
-
What I don't get is that for such a serious allegation, why sue for such a, relatively, paltry amount?
We could start a Paul Kimmage Fund
0 -
does anyone know which articles exactly thiss is about ? There's no real mention of exctly what Kimmage has said to bring this about.
Surely taking it to court is only going to drag these things further into the public eye and be bad for the sport0 -
-
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11008/Kimmage-blasts-UCI-legal-action-by-McQuaid-and-Verbruggen.aspx
My reaction to this can be summed up very simply. Unlike Mr Verbruggen and Mr McQuaid, I do not accept donations from Lance Armstrong, so I am not really in a position to defend this,” he said. “Hell will freeze over before I issue either of those gentlemen an apology for anything
GO KIMMAGE!!!
I'm no superfan of his, but I did enjoy that! :oops:We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
GO KIMMAGE!!
+1
What a hero.
Actually, I would probably pay to see this pair laughed out of court.0 -
Lance has shown some real class on twitter
@juanpelota Juan Pelota
Shouldn't Pat and Hein know Irish plumbers don't have that kind of money?
Nice guy.0 -
Not wishing to disagree with Mr Armstrong but 'Irish plumbers' probably do have 'that kind of money'. Along with Polish plumbers, Welsh plumbers, Brazilian plumbers, etc. Plumbers are building trade aristocracy.The older I get the faster I was0
-
As somebody on twitter pointed out to Mr Pelota - plumbers know where to find all the shit.
except it didn't say shoot.0 -
No fan of Armstrong but have a bit of respect still for the tour wins by many shysters . Have followed the sport since 1984. Livestrong's donation to the uci predates Landis' allegations. The date of the revelation of the alleged covered up Tour De Suiusse 2001 test comes years after the date on which livestrong's donated money to the UCI went on public record.
But all power to Kimmage. I hope he takes the UCI on. Am an Obree fan and hate Verbrugen for his lazze fair management of the sport the 1990s yet picking on legit athletes at the same time who stayed in the rules0 -
can we take some kind of class action against the UCI for the "annoyance" they have caused us by being so incompetent?
I'd love to see l'equipe step in and provide Kimmage's defence .....0 -
PBo wrote:can we take some kind of class action against the UCI for the "annoyance" they have caused us by being so incompetent?
I'd love to see l'equipe step in and provide Kimmage's defence .....
I often wonder why Graeme Obree doesn't sue the UCI/Hein Verbruggen for substantial damages arising from the unconstitutional rule changes track side that may have deprived him of what would have been his second world pursuit title in 1994.0 -
Who exactly has linked the money paid by Armstrong to the UCI in 1999 to the 2001 Tour of Switzerland 'deal'? It is not possible that (so far) unrecorded 'donations' were made by Armstrong to the UCI in addition to the already documented 1999 payment (which was linked to the UCI issuing a back-dated TUE when Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids) and the 2005 payment (which has been linked to the UCI commissioning the Vrigiman 'hatchet job' on the LNDD after retrospective testing showed that his 1999 Tour samples contained Epo).Dave_1 wrote:Livestrong's donation to the uci predates Landis' allegations. The date of the revelation of the alleged covered up Tour De Suiusse 2001 test comes years after the date on which livestrong's donated money to the UCI went on public record.0 -
Garry H wrote:What I don't get is that for such a serious allegation, why sue for such a, relatively, paltry amount?
Exactly, I guess they want to set a precedent that will act as a warning to others rather than be compensated.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
Who exactly has linked the money paid by Armstrong to the UCI in 1999 to the 2001 Tour of Switzerland 'deal'? It is not possible that (so far) unrecorded 'donations' were made by Armstrong to the UCI in addition to the already documented 1999 payment (which was linked to the UCI issuing a back-dated TUE when Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids) and the 2005 payment (which has been linked to the UCI commissioning the Vrigiman 'hatchet job' on the LNDD after retrospective testing showed that his 1999 Tour samples contained Epo).Dave_1 wrote:Livestrong's donation to the uci predates Landis' allegations. The date of the revelation of the alleged covered up Tour De Suiusse 2001 test comes years after the date on which livestrong's donated money to the UCI went on public record.
I am fairly certain it is in a book around in mid 2000s that LA contributed to fund of a blood testing machine to the UCI. It might even be in a book attempting to make LA look good . The donation of something by LA to the UCI to improve testing for blood doping was not news to me in May 2010. The Tour de Suisse 2001 test allegation in May 2010 was news..but they were not revealed together in May 2010. Anyways..time is running out Bernie..nothing by April 2012 suggests grand jury expired..it's already been extended by 6 months I read. ..so keeping your fingers crossed I bet
0 -
Dave_1 wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
Who exactly has linked the money paid by Armstrong to the UCI in 1999 to the 2001 Tour of Switzerland 'deal'? It is not possible that (so far) unrecorded 'donations' were made by Armstrong to the UCI in addition to the already documented 1999 payment (which was linked to the UCI issuing a back-dated TUE when Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids) and the 2005 payment (which has been linked to the UCI commissioning the Vrigiman 'hatchet job' on the LNDD after retrospective testing showed that his 1999 Tour samples contained Epo).Dave_1 wrote:Livestrong's donation to the uci predates Landis' allegations. The date of the revelation of the alleged covered up Tour De Suiusse 2001 test comes years after the date on which livestrong's donated money to the UCI went on public record.
I am fairly certain it is in a book around in mid 2000s that LA contributed to fund of a blood testing machine to the UCI. It might even be in a book attempting to make LA look good . The donation of something by LA to the UCI to improve testing for blood doping was not news to me in May 2010. The Tour de Suisse 2001 test allegation in May 2010 was news..but they were not revealed together in May 2010. Anyways..time is running out Bernie..nothing by April 2012 suggests grand jury expired..it's already been extended by 6 months I read. Grand juries don't run more than 3 years..so keeping your fingers crossed I bet
If it does expire, it would be great for the investigators to come out and say either
a) we couldn't find enough evidence.
b) we suspected, but didn't have enough to go to the judge
or
c) we found enough to suggest that US postal didn't use state money to purchase illegal substances for doping.
I think most likely it'll peter-out, which would be a waste.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Dave_1 wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
Who exactly has linked the money paid by Armstrong to the UCI in 1999 to the 2001 Tour of Switzerland 'deal'? It is not possible that (so far) unrecorded 'donations' were made by Armstrong to the UCI in addition to the already documented 1999 payment (which was linked to the UCI issuing a back-dated TUE when Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids) and the 2005 payment (which has been linked to the UCI commissioning the Vrigiman 'hatchet job' on the LNDD after retrospective testing showed that his 1999 Tour samples contained Epo).Dave_1 wrote:Livestrong's donation to the uci predates Landis' allegations. The date of the revelation of the alleged covered up Tour De Suiusse 2001 test comes years after the date on which livestrong's donated money to the UCI went on public record.
I am fairly certain it is in a book around in mid 2000s that LA contributed to fund of a blood testing machine to the UCI. It might even be in a book attempting to make LA look good . The donation of something by LA to the UCI to improve testing for blood doping was not news to me in May 2010. The Tour de Suisse 2001 test allegation in May 2010 was news..but they were not revealed together in May 2010. Anyways..time is running out Bernie..nothing by April 2012 suggests grand jury expired..it's already been extended by 6 months I read. Grand juries don't run more than 3 years..so keeping your fingers crossed I bet
If it does expire, it would be great for the investigators to come out and say either
a) we couldn't find enough evidence.
b) we suspected, but didn't have enough to go to the judge
or
c) we found enough to suggest that US postal didn't use state money to purchase illegal substances for doping.
I think most likely it'll peter-out, which would be a waste.
Rick, I am mistaken in my 3 years for grand juries comment. The GJ must have asked for an extension before year end 2011 hence edited my post. Grand Juries close after an extension like that. The GJ is on borrowed time now. It will likely go away..another TDF doper will be saved. And grand juries don't report findings..they just close. It isn't a trial from what I understand but a sort through of evidence to see if it goes to trial so am certain we will not get a press release saying GJ closed0 -
Fair enough. I still stand by my comment.
I want their conclusion, whatever happens, not just if they find something that makes prosecution worthwhile.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Fair enough. I still stand by my comment.
I want their conclusion, whatever happens, not just if they find something that makes prosecution worthwhile.
sorry, edited my post again. They don't report and they just cease. What is said in the GJ is confidential I read. It isn't a public inquiry in anyway0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:Shame.
LAs is a regular grand jury from what I read. So it must be up soon. Maybe a runaway grand jury is the only hope..used to pursue the mob in 1935 I think.
Grand jury's term
Federal grand juries are of two types--regular and special. Regular grand juries sit for a basic term of 18 months, but that term can be extended up to another 6 months, which means their total possible term is 24 months. Special grand juries sit for 18 months, but their term can be extended for up to another 18 months; a court can extend a special grand jury's term for 6 months, and can enter up to three such extensions, totaling 18 months0 -
-
with regard to the LA grand jury basically no knows what is going on with that and who they are really into either. Either it will die a death or they will move this onto charges and a public trail. According to the asylum it's still going on but we all know what they are like over there.
The Nixon stuff from the 70s only just got released so we have a long wait for the truth.
What is the Obree rule changes people are talking about ? Didn't follow track then ?
So far we know about 2 LA payments to the UCI because the UCI told us, although the sysmex receipt never made it into the public domain despite what Pat said. Didn't Anna Griepe (spelling ??) who worked at the UCI say whenever she looked into or asked about the LA money it was always covered up0 -
sherer wrote:
What is the Obree rule changes people are talking about ? Didn't follow track then ?
Here's a report from the time:
http://tinyurl.com/6mmb8crTwitter: @RichN950 -
sherer wrote:with regard to the LA grand jury basically no knows what is going on with that and who they are really into either. Either it will die a death or they will move this onto charges and a public trail. According to the asylum it's still going on but we all know what they are like over there.
I can't actually follow any thread on that thing.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Livestrong's donation to the uci predates Landis' allegations. The date of the revelation of the alleged covered up Tour De Suiusse 2001 test comes years after the date on which livestrong's donated money to the UCI went on public record.BikingBernie wrote:Who exactly has linked the money paid by Armstrong to the UCI in 1999 to the 2001 Tour of Switzerland 'deal'? It is not possible that (so far) unrecorded 'donations' were made by Armstrong to the UCI in addition to the already documented 1999 payment (which was linked to the UCI issuing a back-dated TUE when Armstrong tested positive for corticosteroids) and the 2005 payment (which has been linked to the UCI commissioning the Vrigiman 'hatchet job' on the LNDD after retrospective testing showed that his 1999 Tour samples contained Epo).Dave_1 wrote:I am fairly certain it is in a book around in mid 2000s that LA contributed to fund of a blood testing machine to the UCI. It might even be in a book attempting to make LA look good . The donation of something by LA to the UCI to improve testing for blood doping was not news to me in May 2010. The Tour de Suisse 2001 test allegation in May 2010 was news..but they were not revealed together in May 2010...
So, what relevance does the 1999 bung have to what Landis said about the 'arrangement' made in connection with Armstrong testing positive for Epo at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland? The way you worded your post made it seem as though you were trying to imply that Landis' claims about Armstrong paying off the UCI in 2001 lacked credibility because the record showed Armstrong 'donated' money to the UCI in 1999, not 2001...0
