Kimmage and the UCI

24567…11

Comments

  • bartman100
    bartman100 Posts: 544
    Le Commentateur wrote:
    Interestingly, for something so apparently detrimental to their reputations, they appear to be pursuing him for a relatively insignificant amount in damages (about €8,000 each), though legal costs will inflate that. I guess it's all about the score on their cards, as they move through the hierarchy of world sport. Oh, and maybe as a warning to others to keep their mouths shut.

    I guess also that the financial risk is too great for the UCI to go up against a larger, better-funded opponent such as a major international publishing company.

    Don't forget they're also asking for him to pay for adverts in national media, publicising the outcome.
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    And just in case the CN article is taken down shortly whilst Daniel Benson is abducted by the UCI to be waterboarded in an underground dungeon in Aigle, here it is............





    Dutchman reacts angrily to questions on Armstrong testing

    Former UCI President Hein Verbruggen has ruled out taking legal action against Tyler Hamilton despite the former rider substantiating Floyd Landis' allegations of past corruption within the UCI. Cycling's governing body is suing Landis for defamation after he alleged that the UCI had covered up a positive test for Lance Armstrong during the 2001 Tour de Suisse and protected riders. Both Armstrong and the UCI have denied the allegations while Landis has yet to see his case come to light in court.

    The UCI is also in the midst of legal proceedings against the former Sunday Times and "Rough Ride" author Paul Kimmage, who received a subpoena on Wednesday from the Est Vaudois district court, which is based in Vevey, near UCI headquarters at Aigle. The case is to be heard on December 12.

    While the UCI sues a journalist with a stern public anti-doping stance and an ex-rider who has confessed to doping, they are still awaiting a "reasoned decision" which USADA must issue as the next step in its anti-doping case against Lance Armstrong.

    "The problem is we can't find Landis," Verbruggen told Cyclingnews as he poured himself a glass of wine at a worlds presentation in Valkenburg.

    However Verbruggen, who served as UCI president from 1991 to 2005, added that, "We've had legal suits in the past with Dick Pound so everyone that says we have put things under the table or not done our best is sued. Simple. They can come to the court and prove their case. Simple like that."

    It is understood that the UCI's action against Kimmage stemmed from a body of work for The Sunday Times newspaper, which includes an extensive interview with Floyd Landis published in January 2011, and in response to criticism of the UCI that Kimmage expressed in an interview with L'Équipe. However, the UCI has not requested damages from L'Équipe or The Sunday Times, only from Kimmage. The Irishman left The Sunday Times at the end of 2011.

    Asked why he and his associates had taken action against Kimmage and not the publications Verbruggen incorrectly claimed that only the author could face a legal case.

    "No it's him. He's said it. You don't sue the paper. I don't know exactly the details but I saw the text and the text is clearly at attempt at our integrity. Recently I saw that he was angry with us because we went after journalist and we should do better anti doping and not go after journalists who ask questions."

    In 2011 Kimmage spent several hours interviewing Landis, an interview the UCI at the time called 'boring'. Later, in an interview with Cyclingnews, Kimmage raised questions about the UCI's relationship with Armstrong, while last month he told the website that, "McQuaid needs to resign and Verbruggen needs to be removed from the sport."

    "Rough Ride", is widely held up as one of the most seminal cycling books. It tells the tale of Kimmage's journey as professional rider and his predicament and battles as he encountered a world and culture warped by doping. Asked if he had read the book, which was published roughly at the same time his presidency began, Verbruggen said:

    "No. No. I have no need to read that. Why should I? I'm not in cycling any more. I've never read it. I don't read very much. I'm sorry to say but there's no need. I know what we have to do and we always did. Someone has doubts about that, court, simple. Also Mr Pound. I have nothing to hide."

    The Secret Race

    As for Hamilton, whose book "The Secret Race" was released earlier this month, Verbruggen ruled out legal action. In his confession Hamilton admitted to taking performance enhancing drugs during his time at US Postal, CSC and Phonak and alleged that Lance Armstrong provided him with EPO before the 1999 Tour de France.

    Hamilton, like Landis, makes the claim that Armstrong told him that a positive test from 2001 was covered up. Hamilton also claims that Armstrong informed the UCI of Hamilton's doping habits after Hamilton beat Armstrong during a mountain time trial at the Dauphine in 2004. Hamilton said that the call lead to meeting between him and the UCI. The UCI later said that the meeting was routine and that Armstrong had not been involved.

    "He [Hamilton] has not written those things. He says that he's heard from Armstrong saying those things. He's much more careful," Verbruggen said.

    Yet in the book Hamilton says, "We're way, way ahead of the tests. They've got their doctors, and we've got ours, and ours are better. Better paid, for sure. Besides, the UCI doesn't want to catch certain guys anyway. Why would they? It'd cost them money."

    As for the Armstrong tip off, Verbruggen said "That's not true. He was called in by the UCI. I've never had a tip from Armstrong but you know and not from anyone else. We called him in because he had very doubtful results. We did that all the time. That's what he says but I don't want to talk about the whole thing."

    USADA's case files

    It is understood that both Landis and Hamilton are central in USADA's case surrounding doping practises that took place at the US Postal team. The agency's case has already led to uncontested sanctions for Lance Armstrong, who has been stripped of all of his results from 1998 onwards.

    Landis originally came clean in a series of emails in 2010, when he added to doping, and the fact that he had covered up his lies by denying doping.

    "He has never contacted me. Nor has Mr Kimmage, Mr Walsh, Mr Hamilton, nor has any of your colleagues. I've never heard from these people one phone call," Verbruggen said when asked why he would not listen to a confession.

    Cyclingnews reminded Verbruggen that he and Landis had been in email contact in 2010, when he had emailed Landis stating that: "Mr. Landis, you're not worth any further word or attention except perhaps from psychiatrists. HV".

    Upon being reminded of the email correspondence, Verbruggen added: "Yes, because he comes out with statements and then I react but pick up the phone and talk with those people, that's apparently not done.

    "If someone wants to give me a confession come and give me a call, sit down. These people go to the press, say all kinds of insulting things that are not true, well let them come to court. That's my only answer.

    "You're a journalist. You know very well how it works. It's the same thing. We've had Mr Pound in court. He has retracted many of the things he says in court but you don't publish that and most of the press doesn't. Come to court and prove your case. I think that's the best answer. It should be taken as a sign that we have nothing to hide. Nothing. Absolutely nothing."

    When asked about the USADA case Verbruggen reacted angrily, saying, "I don't talk about that. You're a journalist. You hear that those people say Armstrong has arranged with the UCI... If you would be a guy that thinks like Landis or Hamilton wouldn't you ask Armstrong what are you doing with the tests that are done by USADA? What are going to do with the tests by WADA, AFLD? Nobody says that. What I mean is, if Armstrong tells those riders I can arrange with the UCI, if you were Hamilton wouldn't you say, 'Lance what if I'm controlled by USADA, what are you going to do if I'm found positive?' He has been controlled 500 times, maybe 200 times other than us."

    The claim of 500 tests has never been officially proven but current UCI President Pat McQuaid recently publicised that Armstrong had been tested 215 times by the UCI. However when Cyclingnews pointed out that they weren't aware of how many times Armstrong had been tested or which body had tested him each time, Verbruggen added:

    "You should. God dammit. You're here with your microphone embarrassing me with all types of questions. I'm mad at people like you. You don't even do your homework. Is he only controlled by the UCI, he's controlled by other bodies. Am I entitled to be upset? You can write that. I wonder. You don't know the rules. That's upsetting for me. I'm 72 and I don't need lessons from people like that. You don't do your bloody homework. I know he's been tested. Yes. You should bloody well know; I hope to see that you write that. 'We as journalists don't do our homework'."
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    When I initially read it, I couldn't work out why Twisted Spoke was posting in the CN News section.
  • thomasmc
    thomasmc Posts: 814
    RichN95 wrote:
    thomasmc wrote:
    I wonder will we have the usual deafening silence from the peloton on this?
    Why would anyone in the peloton give a toss about this one way or the other?

    I actually think a lot of riders would give a toss. Its whether they would put their head above the parapet and make a comment is what I doubt
  • Tusher
    Tusher Posts: 2,762
    I think they would have to reach a critical mass, and to do that, it would take more than one to speak out at a time.
  • r0bh
    r0bh Posts: 2,383
    Millar just now on Twitter:

    UCI = SHAMEFUL. They continue to sue Kimmage which is disgusting and Verbruggen speaks out proving he must have nothing to do with cycling.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    thomasmc wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    thomasmc wrote:
    I wonder will we have the usual deafening silence from the peloton on this?
    Why would anyone in the peloton give a toss about this one way or the other?

    I actually think a lot of riders would give a toss. Its whether they would put their head above the parapet and make a comment is what I doubt
    No, they really don't care. This is a squabble that doesn't effect them. Sportsmen are pretty self absorbed. They are only really interested in their own training and racing and getting paid. Who is running the show is of little interest. It could be Jack the Ripper or the Easter Bunny for all they care.

    It's the same with me. I've been a civil servant for nearly twenty years. In that time there have been maybe a dozen ministers in charge. I could name about two of them - but only because they were household names. I don't know who the current one is. Who it is has never impacted on my own work, so I take little interest in departmental politics.

    This story is of interest to those who have obsessed about Armstrong for the last few years. It's of no interest to someone riding the Worlds on Sunday.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • DeadCalm
    DeadCalm Posts: 4,243
    RichN95 wrote:
    No, they really don't care. This is a squabble that doesn't effect them. Sportsmen are pretty self absorbed. They are only really interested in their own training and racing and getting paid. Who is running the show is of little interest. It could be Jack the Ripper or the Easter Bunny for all they care.

    It's the same with me. I've been a civil servant for nearly twenty years. In that time there have been maybe a dozen ministers in charge. I could name about two of them - but only because they were household names. I don't know who the current one is. Who it is has never impacted on my own work, so I take little interest in departmental politics.

    This story is of interest to those who have obsessed about Armstrong for the last few years. It's of no interest to someone riding the Worlds on Sunday.
    I'd disagree, to the extent that any rider who wants to compete clean and on a level playing field should be concerned about having McQuaid and Verbruggen running the sport.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    r0bh wrote:
    Millar just now on Twitter:

    UCI = SHAMEFUL. They continue to sue Kimmage which is disgusting and Verbruggen speaks out proving he must have nothing to do with cycling.


    with follow-up tweet:

    'What's amazing is the more the UCI continue to act in this manner the more they reveal themselves to be to blame for the last 20 years'


    Millar's been at a WADA conference in St Petersburg this week....wonder how much the UCI has come up in discussions...
  • dsoutar
    dsoutar Posts: 1,746
    I'd disagree, to the extent that any rider who wants to compete clean and on a level playing field should be concerned about having McQuaid and Verbruggen running the sport.

    As indeed aptly demonstrated by Mr. Millar above
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    DeadCalm wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    No, they really don't care. This is a squabble that doesn't effect them. Sportsmen are pretty self absorbed. They are only really interested in their own training and racing and getting paid. Who is running the show is of little interest. It could be Jack the Ripper or the Easter Bunny for all they care.

    It's the same with me. I've been a civil servant for nearly twenty years. In that time there have been maybe a dozen ministers in charge. I could name about two of them - but only because they were household names. I don't know who the current one is. Who it is has never impacted on my own work, so I take little interest in departmental politics.

    This story is of interest to those who have obsessed about Armstrong for the last few years. It's of no interest to someone riding the Worlds on Sunday.
    I'd disagree, to the extent that any rider who wants to compete clean and on a level playing field should be concerned about having McQuaid and Verbruggen running the sport.
    Those riders though, are probably very grateful for the huge advances made on the doping front in the last half a dozen years. They might be reading Hamilton's book and thinking thank god I don't have to go through that to succeed.
    I bet over half the peloton don't even know who Paul Kimmage is.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    RichN95 wrote:
    DeadCalm wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    No, they really don't care. This is a squabble that doesn't effect them. Sportsmen are pretty self absorbed. They are only really interested in their own training and racing and getting paid. Who is running the show is of little interest. It could be Jack the Ripper or the Easter Bunny for all they care.

    It's the same with me. I've been a civil servant for nearly twenty years. In that time there have been maybe a dozen ministers in charge. I could name about two of them - but only because they were household names. I don't know who the current one is. Who it is has never impacted on my own work, so I take little interest in departmental politics.

    This story is of interest to those who have obsessed about Armstrong for the last few years. It's of no interest to someone riding the Worlds on Sunday.
    I'd disagree, to the extent that any rider who wants to compete clean and on a level playing field should be concerned about having McQuaid and Verbruggen running the sport.
    Those riders though, are probably very grateful for the huge advances made on the doping front in the last half a dozen years. They might be reading Hamilton's book and thinking thank god I don't have to go through that to succeed.
    I bet over half the peloton don't even know who Paul Kimmage is.


    I'd probably agree on the last point. I doubt that more than a handful have read Rough Ride or his articles, or for that matter Walsh's LA Confidential/From Lance to Landis or his articles - and certainly none of them below a certain age
  • Dorset_Boy
    Dorset_Boy Posts: 7,402
    I don't think riders with much of their career would risk standing up - if the UCI are corrupt, then there is nothing to stop them faking test results is there? Riders can be effectively drummed out of the sport.

    What change the Swiss judge receiving a very fat brown envelope (or someone further up the food chain who appoints the judge)?

    Someone needs to present some hard evidence to confirm the suspicions, that the UCI can't refute. One of two things then occur - a large broom sweeps through or a breakaway body is set up and takes the likes of ASO with them.
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Dorset Boy wrote:
    Someone needs to present some hard evidence to confirm the suspicions, that the UCI can't refute. One of two things then occur - a large broom sweeps through or a breakaway body is set up and takes the likes of ASO with them.

    Breakaway body is dead for now, so that's not going to happen.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Lichtblick
    Lichtblick Posts: 1,434
    UCI court action sees Kimmage summoned to appear before Swiss court in December

    Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12904 ... z277pjmMWE


    at the end....... "The legal action against Kimmage has led to strong criticism from several journalists, including David Walsh. The chief sportswriter of the Sunday Times is another who has written at length about doping in cycling, and has raised questions of the UCI’s relationship with Armstrong.

    “I am appalled that cycling’s governing body is suing the greatest anti-doping rider to have ever finished the Tour de France,” he told VeloNation today. “It tells you about UCI and where it is coming from.”

    Last year Verbruggen dismissed the claims of drug use against the Texan. “That's impossible, because there is nothing. I repeat once again: Lance Armstrong has never used doping,” he told AD.nl. “Never, never, never.”


    What a mess.

    What do UCI hope to get out of this?

    :?:
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,310
    Lichtblick wrote:
    What a mess.

    What do UCI hope to get out of this?

    :?:


    Seem like they're being very stupid here.

    By bringing this action against Kimmage they have opened the door to their conduct being discussed in court.

    That could end very badly for them.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Gazzetta67
    Gazzetta67 Posts: 1,890
    Love him or Loathe him Kimmage should model himself on George Galloway's tearing the US Senate commitee to shreads below. 8)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    Slightly off topuic but is there anyway Graeme Obree can seek damages from Verbruggen? He stood out on the track to block Obree's qualifying time at the 1994 World Pursuit Championship, with rules invented on the spot track side to stop a clean athlete staying within the rules to ride fast. If Kimmage defeats the UCI, then perhaps Obree should sue HV/UCI. How much money did Obree lose? Lost of a world title, post champ appearances, plus bigger contract offers for 1995?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    Blimey - youre not a lawyer by any chance are you Dave?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    ddraver wrote:
    Blimey - youre not a lawyer by any chance are you Dave?

    No, ddraver , just curious to see if it is shown Verbruggen covered up a + test then a court might see verbruggen in a different light
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    Possibly - I'm not a lawyer either, but I can't see how Obree could build a realistic case...I bet there's something in the race licence crap that says that you have to race under the rules at the time, however made up they are.

    Be a good case study for some law student tho...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • dave_1
    dave_1 Posts: 9,512
    ddraver wrote:
    Possibly - I'm not a lawyer either, but I can't see how Obree could build a realistic case...I bet there's something in the race licence crap that says that you have to race under the rules at the time, however made up they are.

    Be a good case study for some law student tho...


    Well, he was another victim of the UCI. I do hope Kimmage is not found guilty.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKBacb2V ... ata_player
  • No_Ta_Doctor
    No_Ta_Doctor Posts: 14,550
    Well the Kimmage defence fund seems to be doing fairly well, but lawyers are expensive.

    Personally I think Kimmage can be a bit of an arse sometimes, but he's done a huge amount that needed doing. I hope he gets some really good lawyers and absolutely shreds Pat & HV. As an eternal optimist I'm hoping they've merely provided him with a stage and opportunity to lay it all out for the public.
    Warning No formatter is installed for the format
  • LangerDan
    LangerDan Posts: 6,132
    ..and look,while we're focussing on Kimmage, we've all taken our eye off the "Lance" ball. I suspect that the timing of this action is hardly coincidental.
    'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    100 minutes of UCI press conf in Limburg today

    90 of those minutes about doping
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • ocdupalais
    ocdupalais Posts: 4,314
    iainf72 wrote:
    100 minutes of UCI press conf in Limburg today

    90 of those minutes about doping


    10 mins coffee/toilet/bung break?
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Armed with his BBC accreditation for this weekend David Millar ponied up and asked Fat Pat a pertinent question about the UCI accepting responsibility as part of Truth and Recon. He answered loads of questions from the press immediately afterwards too. There should be stuff up on CW, CN etc pretty shortly.

    LI'll get the clip of his question to Fat Pat and embed it in another post.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Armed with his BBC accreditation for this weekend David Millar ponied up and asked Fat Pat a pertinent question about the UCI accepting responsibility as part of Truth and Recon. He answered loads of questions from the press immediately afterwards too. There should be stuff up on CW, CN etc pretty shortly.

    LI'll get the clip of his question to Fat Pat and embed it in another post.



    http://www.telly.com/DZ7PB?fromtwitvid=1
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Richmond Racer wrote:
    Armed with his BBC accreditation for this weekend David Millar ponied up and asked Fat Pat a pertinent question about the UCI accepting responsibility as part of Truth and Recon. He answered loads of questions from the press immediately afterwards too. There should be stuff up on CW, CN etc pretty shortly.

    LI'll get the clip of his question to Fat Pat and embed it in another post.



    http://www.telly.com/DZ7PB?fromtwitvid=1


    Media scrum around Millar
    https://twitter.com/SimonBrotherton/sta ... 25/photo/1
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    Pat's answer - nothing new - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaeXXDZU ... e=youtu.be
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver

Categories