What will the UCI do?

josame
josame Posts: 1,162
edited October 2012 in Pro race
Accept or take to CAS?
'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'

Comments

  • Scrumple
    Scrumple Posts: 2,665
    Wait and see because whatever is written on this page is worthless speculation.

    I reckon they'll do one or the other, myself. Or maybe something else? Might be wrong though. Unless I'm right.

    But I'm not sure.

    I want my Mum.
  • josame
    josame Posts: 1,162
    Scrumple wrote:
    worthless

    you are on a 'forum' site - just a reminder :wink:
    'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'
  • Scrumple
    Scrumple Posts: 2,665
    Sorry, for a moment there I thought I was at the butchers!

    Silly me. They wont sell cardigans here, will they!

    What day is it?
  • josame
    josame Posts: 1,162
    Scrumple wrote:
    Sorry, for a moment there I thought I was at the butchers!

    Silly me. They wont sell cardigans here, will they!

    What day is it?

    Only yellow jumpers
    'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Ratify.

    And then sue Armstrong
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Noclue
    Noclue Posts: 503
    iainf72 wrote:
    Ratify.

    And then sue Armstrong


    Why sue him? (serious question)
    Flickr
  • Scrumple
    Scrumple Posts: 2,665
    money

    duh

    (recover his assets, to recoup the money handed out to him based on his deception fuelled results and fame)
  • ratsbeyfus
    ratsbeyfus Posts: 2,841
    I think the UCI will state that whilst they don't agree with all that is in doc. (e.g. insinuation about UCI cover up of Tour de Suisse positive),the amount and variety of evidence is overwhelming, and on the balance of probabilities LA doped. The ban will then be ratified. Then, during the press conference, Patty-Mac will shout to assorted journos/cycling-hacks, "Hey look at that enormous spider!" whilst pointing feverishly at the back of room. In the split second distraction, he'll go running out of the press conference room with an over-stuffed suitcase full of cash, vault over the back of a red convertible e-type Jag waiting outside, and speed off into the sunset with Hein' driving and a couple of champagne-tipsy podium girls in bikinis sprawled across the back seat.

    That's just a guess mind.

    I had one of them red bikes but I don't any more. Sad face.

    @ratsbey
  • Noclue
    Noclue Posts: 503
    Scrumple wrote:
    money

    duh

    (recover his assets, to recoup the money handed out to him based on his deception fuelled results and fame)


    The reason for the question was that i could believe race organisers suing him to re-coup winnings paid out, or sponsors for tarnishing their name, or people who have had there careers ruined by him and his lawyers, but the impression i've got from reading all the revalations is that the UCI made money out of him in "donations" etc. so hence why sue him? surely they won't want to shine a light in there.
    Flickr
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    Noclue wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Ratify.

    And then sue Armstrong


    Why sue him? (serious question)

    Because he said they covered up a positive.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,179
    ratsbeyfus wrote:
    I think the UCI will state that whilst they don't agree with all that is in doc. (e.g. insinuation about UCI cover up of Tour de Suisse positive),the amount and variety of evidence is overwhelming, and on the balance of probabilities LA doped. The ban will then be ratified. Then, during the press conference, Patty-Mac will shout to assorted journos/cycling-hacks, "Hey look at that enormous spider!" whilst pointing feverishly at the back of room. In the split second distraction, he'll go running out of the press conference room with an over-stuffed suitcase full of cash, vault over the back of a red convertible e-type Jag waiting outside, and speed off into the sunset with Hein' driving and a couple of champagne-tipsy podium girls in bikinis sprawled across the back seat.

    That's just a guess mind.

    Don't be ridiculous, E Types don't have back seats.
  • andy_wrx
    andy_wrx Posts: 3,396
    iainf72 wrote:
    Noclue wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Ratify.

    And then sue Armstrong


    Why sue him? (serious question)

    Because he said they covered up a positive.

    Perhaps he'll admit the drugs, produce proof of the cover-up and his contributions to the slush fund ?

    Who will blink first !
  • pitchshifter
    pitchshifter Posts: 1,476
    Anyone think they will go for longer sanctions on the whistle blowers?
  • pb21
    pb21 Posts: 2,171
    andy_wrx wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Noclue wrote:
    iainf72 wrote:
    Ratify.

    And then sue Armstrong


    Why sue him? (serious question)

    Because he said they covered up a positive.

    Perhaps he'll admit the drugs, produce proof of the cover-up and his contributions to the slush fund ?

    Who will blink first !

    Interesting, wonder what kinds of conversations are going on at the moment between the UCI and Armstrong?
    Mañana
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,661
    Ratify

    Call a bit press conference where every journo will be allowed only 1 question, which Pat will not answer whatsoever, instead emphasising on how none of this is the UCI's fault and look at how much anti doping they're doing and how we should all be looking to the future

    There will be a massive outcry from the Twitterati, all of which will be ignored by the UCI, and then everything will continue on as normal.
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    ddraver: Ratify



    Well, you would say that, wouldnt you :lol:
  • iainf72
    iainf72 Posts: 15,784
    USAC are supportive, and they were the people originally doing the jurisdiction argument

    As for the UCI, if you read the report, there isnt actually much in there for them to complain about.
    Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.
  • mike6
    mike6 Posts: 1,199
    ddraver wrote:
    Ratify

    Call a bit press conference where every journo will be allowed only 1 question, which Pat will not answer whatsoever, instead emphasising on how none of this is the UCI's fault and look at how much anti doping they're doing and how we should all be looking to the future

    There will be a massive outcry from the Twitterati, all of which will be ignored by the UCI, and then everything will continue on as normal.

    Yep....that sounds about right.

    Call me an old cynic but the UCI are part of the establishment, and the establishment looks after its own. Jobs for the boys and all that. If they can they will try to ignore as much of the flack about them in the report, and hope it goes away. If not it will be as the above poster said.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    Agree - they're battening down the hatches to try and weather the storm. Not sure what its going to take to make that strategy fail.
  • izza
    izza Posts: 1,561
    ddraver wrote:
    Ratify

    Call a bit press conference where every journo will be allowed only 1 question, which Pat will not answer whatsoever, instead emphasising on how none of this is the UCI's fault and look at how much anti doping they're doing and how we should all be looking to the future

    There will be a massive outcry from the Twitterati, all of which will be ignored by the UCI, and then everything will continue on as normal.

    Agreed - but I'm more worried that Lance will finally come out and admit doping, promise to be clean for all future tricycle races with his kids and then the UCI will give him a job as an Anti-Doping Advisor.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,241
    pitchshifter wrote:
    Anyone think they will go for longer sanctions on the whistle blowers?
    Possibly, and I think they would be justified in asking for a longer sanction - six months over the off season for years of doping while Alex Rasmussen gets 18 months for messing up his paperwork?
    They probably won't though as it will be seen as 'promoting omerta' by the Taliban of Twitter.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    RichN95 wrote:
    pitchshifter wrote:
    Anyone think they will go for longer sanctions on the whistle blowers?
    Possibly, and I think they would be justified in asking for a longer sanction - six months over the off season for years of doping while Alex Rasmussen gets 18 months for messing up his paperwork?
    They probably won't though as it will be seen as 'promoting omerta' by the Taliban of Twitter.

    I think the UCI pays as much attention to twitter as Tom Boonen pays attention to women over the age of 18.



    i.e. none
    _
  • essexeagle
    essexeagle Posts: 60
    UCI are in a hole. They can't go the 'truth and reconciliation' or amnesty route as they are too compromised. So they will cut loose LA (no honour amongst thieves) and brazen everything else out.
  • Richmond Racer
    Richmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    essexeagle wrote:
    UCI are in a hole. They can't go the 'truth and reconciliation' or amnesty route as they are too compromised. So they will cut loose LA (no honour amongst thieves) and brazen everything else out.


    Not from what Evil Hein is saying, according to quotes in today's Telegraaf. According to the Chosen One, 'there is no evidence against Lance'

Categories