Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

Seems like it's the same bunch of tit bits doing the rounds. Wish this process was judicial in nature to stop this rumour mill. Wonder if these guys still have visible scarring?

Posted

Wish this process was judicial in nature to stop this rumour mill.

 

Me too, but I think that is why LA chase the DNF route. By accepting the outcome of the judicial process without having the evidence led, he could keep it in the realm of rumour, rather than having to confront it in a judicial forum.

 

A bit like the old advice "rather keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than open it and remove all doubt" .

Posted

Lance Armstrong's ex-wife, Kristin, is said to have not only known about but also participated in his doping practices, helping to refrigerate EPO and distribute drugs to US riders at the 1998 World Championships.

 

 

The report also claims that George Hincapie said that he lied to US Customers officials about EPO in his luggage.

 

David Walsh, writing for The Sunday Times, introduced Kristin Armstrong's name into the matter for the first time. A rider is said to have claimed that cortisone pills wrapped in tin foil were distributed to USPS riders at the 1998 World Championships in Valkenburg. In his affidavit, the rider said that Kristin wrapped and handed out the pills. "Kristin is rolling the joints," one rider supposedly said at the time.

 

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/report-armstrongs-ex-wife-involved-in-doping-scheme

Posted

After reading Hamilton's book i must say that i like Hamilton a bit more than i use too but i cannot say that i like Armstrong any less. No such thing as big sin and small sin. At the end of the day they are all in the same boat. I respect them just as much as i did in the past

Posted

Agreed, you will get some Hubbers who going to hate that statement, I was called the village idiot for something along the same lines, but as you say dope can't pedal a bike

Dope helps agreed, but really at that level Hubbers are sitting around thinking/saying they can't believe that this has happened!!! Doping in cycling really???

Posted (edited)

I am busy with the book.

I will always have respect for Any of the Tour riders.i have seen some of those mountains and dope alone won't get you over them.

 

+1

 

With regards to the court ruling in favour of UCI....I like this bit (copy n pasted from your link)

 

Wonder what the advertisments HAVE to say? Just the verdict or an apology as well? 20'000 Chf plus costs eish, wonder if he can afford that and what time frame he has to cough up in, and if he doesn't then what...

 

Did Landis know Gaddafi personaly?

 

Landis has been ordered to take out advertisements at his own expense publishing the verdict in the Wall Street Journal, L’Équipe, Le Temps, NYVelocity, Cyclingnews, Velonation, Velonews and De Volksrant. He has also been ordered to pay McQuaid and Verbruggen the sum of 10,000 Swiss Frances each, as well as their legal costs.

 

Article two of the verdict goes into quite specific detail as to what Landis is not allowed to say about the UCI in the future, noting that it is forbidden for him to say that the UCI, McQuaid and Verbruggen “have concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races, have hesitated and delayed publishing the results of a positive test on Alberto Contador, have accepted bribes, are corrupt, are terrorists, have no regard for the rules, load the dice, are fools, do not have a genuine desire to restore discipline to cycling, are full of ****, are clowns, their words are worthless, are liars, are no different to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, or to make any similar other allegations of that kind.”

Edited by SwissVan
Posted

The UCI today declared that a ruling in its favour in a defamation suit against Floyd Landis "upholds and protects the integrity of the UCI and its Presidents", but the American's lawyer claims that Landis was never given a chance to defend himself.

Landis's lawyer, Leo Cunningham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, told ESPN.com today that the judgement by default issued by the Swiss civil court, which upheld the filing made by Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen, was "unenforceable".

"Floyd was never served with the UCI's Swiss lawsuit, never appeared in Switzerland on the case, and therefore the Swiss Court had no opportunity to hear Floyd on the issues," Cunningham wrote to ESPN.

"The order is un-American in every sense of that word. It is inconsistent with American law, it flies in the face of our First Amendment, and it would be unenforceable in American courts. It does not affect Floyd's status under American law in any way."

The cease and desist order prohibits Landis from making allegations against the UCI that they "concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races," and more.

It also prohibits Landis from calling the UCI "full of ****", "clowns" and "liars", and orders him to pay damages of 10,000 Swiss francs each to McQuaid and Verbruggen, plus 4,600 each in court costs.

Posted

I am busy with the book.

I will always have respect for Any of the Tour riders.i have seen some of those mountains and dope alone won't get you over them.

 

I agree. I have just finished the book, and doping aside it has made me appreciate how tough a sport this really is. With or without dope, those guys are superhuman.

Posted (edited)

The UCI today declared that a ruling in its favour in a defamation suit against Floyd Landis "upholds and protects the integrity of the UCI and its Presidents", but the American's lawyer claims that Landis was never given a chance to defend himself.

Landis's lawyer, Leo Cunningham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, told ESPN.com today that the judgement by default issued by the Swiss civil court, which upheld the filing made by Pat McQuaid and Hein Verbruggen, was "unenforceable".

"Floyd was never served with the UCI's Swiss lawsuit, never appeared in Switzerland on the case, and therefore the Swiss Court had no opportunity to hear Floyd on the issues," Cunningham wrote to ESPN.

"The order is un-American in every sense of that word. It is inconsistent with American law, it flies in the face of our First Amendment, and it would be unenforceable in American courts. It does not affect Floyd's status under American law in any way."

The cease and desist order prohibits Landis from making allegations against the UCI that they "concealed cases of doping, received money for doing so, have accepted money from Lance Armstrong to conceal a doping case, have protected certain racing cyclists, concealed cases of doping, have engaged in manipulation, particularly of tests and races," and more.

It also prohibits Landis from calling the UCI "full of ****", "clowns" and "liars", and orders him to pay damages of 10,000 Swiss francs each to McQuaid and Verbruggen, plus 4,600 each in court costs.

That adds to the credibility of the court order then... :whistling: Edited by dracs
Posted

 

"Floyd was never served with the UCI's Swiss lawsuit, never appeared in Switzerland on the case, and therefore the Swiss Court had no opportunity to hear Floyd on the issues," Cunningham wrote to ESPN.

 

"The order is un-American in every sense of that word. It is inconsistent with American law, it flies in the face of our First Amendment, and it would be unenforceable in American courts. It does not affect Floyd's status under American law in any way."

 

 

 

That adds to the credibility of the court order then... :whistling:

 

 

Sounds like lawyer BS speak to me... Does FL's (pun not intended) laywer mean to say that they did not know about the swiss "court case" at all and only heard about it after the ruling announced yesterday?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout