# Kimmage sued by the UCI



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

In an attempt to silence critics and send a message to other journalists the UCI has sued Paul Kimmage. He was served a subpoena yesterday


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

UCI court action sees Kimmage summoned to appear before Swiss court in December

Notice how they do not sue the London Sunday Times or l'Equipe. They have money to defend themselves. Paul is an unemployed writer

Pat is such an embarrassment to the sport


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

Would be nice if this somehow turned around to bite them (Pat/Hein). December 12 is a good ways off. USADA details should be released by then. If the UCI has no credibility at that time, 2013 might get off to a "clean" start. (But then I hoped for a clean start after July 1998)


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In an attempt to silence critics and send a message to other journalists the UCI has sued Paul Kimmage. He was served a subpoena yesterday


Nice editorializing.



> Last January it emerged that Verbruggen and McQuaid had launched a claim stating that Kimmage was ‘dishonest’ in accusing them of ‘having knowingly tolerated tests, of being dishonest people, of not having a sense of responsibility, of not applying the same rules to everyone.’
> 
> The UCI has been under scrutiny in relation to the Lance Armstrong situation and it is thought that the complaint against Kimmage relates in part to an interview carried out with Floyd Landis. Both that rider and Tyler Hamilton have claimed the UCI shielded the Texan.


Seems to me they might have a point. And they have a duty to protect the image of their organization. Did Kimmage go over the line? If you are going to make those kind of direct accusations, you had better be able to back them up. A respectable journalist would have no problem doing that.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I have no idea what Eu laws say concerning slander and public figures. My only reference on this is _The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo_. 

But those types of accusations would surely get a pass around here. (If slander and accusations of dishonesty were banned in the states then cable news would go out of business.)

Again, I don't know much about Eu laws, but why would Kimmage even submit to the authority of a Swiss Court? He's an Irishman, right? If I were an unemployed writer and facing a costly legal battle in a foreign land, I would ignore the charges...unless there's some sort of full faith and credit agreement across the EU. 

Can someone explain a little more on this?


----------



## bnoojin (Mar 24, 2002)

mmoose said:


> Would be nice if this somehow turned around to bite them (Pat/Hein). *December 12 is a good ways off. *USADA details should be released by then. If the UCI has no credibility at that time, 2013 might get off to a "clean" start. (But then I hoped for a clean start after July 1998)


12/12/12. so that's what the Mayans were predicting...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Verburggen covered up positives. Suing kimmage does not change that

they only sue him for 8K. Guess their reputations are not worth much. Of course they don't sue The Times or l'Equipe, as they are not unemployed writers


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Verburggen covered up positives. Suing kimmage does not change that


If that's true, then Kimmage will be vindicated, Verburggen will look like an ass, and the UCI will open themselves up to a countersuit. I'm sure Kimmage welcomes the opportunity to make that happen.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Did the Times or l'Equipe make the same accusations as Kimmage? 




Doctor Falsetti said:


> Notice how they do not sue the London Sunday Times or l'Equipe. They have money to defend themselves. Paul is an unemployed writer





Doctor Falsetti said:


> Of course they don't sue The Times or l'Equipe, as they are not unemployed writers


Falsetti, you're doing that thing where you repeat someone's tweet over and over. (That's fine to do when you're rocking back and forth, hugging yourself in the corner but it's not helpful on message boards.)


On a "any press is good press" note, won't this lawsuit fan the flames? Kimmage should welcome it.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> If that's true, then Kimmage will be vindicated, Verburggen will look like an ass, and the UCI will open themselves up to a countersuit. I'm sure Kimmage welcomes the opportunity to make that happen.


I expect he does, but few look forward wasting a truckload of money to defend himself against a baseless lawsuit. 

It is hard to ignore that Kimmage is correct. The UCI did give special treatment to Armstrong. When he tested positive for Cortisone they allowed him to use a back dated TUE. When he tested positive for EPO in 2001 Dr Leon Schattenberg from the UCI called Saugy and told him to drop it, the positive was "Going nowhere". The UCI then arranged for Johan Bruyneel to visit the UCI's lab and get an overview of the testing process. This is unheard of. 

The UCI is concerned. UASC is also concerned. They know that USADA has evidence of their corruption and are pushing Pat hard to fight USADA on jurisdictional grounds. This legal action against Paul is a message to all journalists.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> In an attempt to ... send a message to other journalists





Doctor Falsetti said:


> This legal action against Paul is a message to all journalists.


If it is a #MessageToAllJournalist, why aren't they suing the Times or l'Equipe?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> If it is a #MessageToAllJournalist, why aren't they suing the Times or l'Equipe?


 The Times and l'Equipe have money They would crush Pat. Most journalists, especially unemployed ones like Paul, don't have a lot of money. This is a message that the UCI will target and harass them


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm sorry, I don't know the entire history. Did the Times and l'Equipe print Kimmage's articles?


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I expect he does, but few look forward wasting a truckload of money to defend himself against a baseless lawsuit.
> 
> It is hard to ignore that Kimmage is correct. The UCI did give special treatment to Armstrong. When he tested positive for Cortisone they allowed him to use a back dated TUE. When he tested positive for EPO in 2001 Dr Leon Schattenberg from the UCI called Saugy and told him to drop it, the positive was "Going nowhere". The UCI then arranged for Johan Bruyneel to visit the UCI's lab and get an overview of the testing process. This is unheard of.
> 
> The UCI is concerned. UASC is also concerned. They know that USADA has evidence of their corruption and are pushing Pat hard to fight USADA on jurisdictional grounds. This legal action against Paul is a message to all journalists.


Maybe he should start up the Kimmage Fairness Fund.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Maybe he should start up the Kimmage Fairness Fund.


Already done. You can donate here
Paul Kimmage Defense Fund | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Already done. You can donate here
> Paul Kimmage Defense Fund | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


Great. His legal fees are covered. He can back up his statements. So it's inevitable that he'll take down the clowns who run the UCI and reveal all their sins. It's what everyone has been waiting for.

So what's the problem?


----------



## SicBith (Jan 21, 2008)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Already done. You can donate here
> Paul Kimmage Defense Fund | NY Velocity - New York bike racing culture, news and events


I wonder if Tyler, Floyd, or maybe even the great Greg Lemond will throw some money at Kimmage.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> Great. His legal fees are covered. He can back up his statements. So it's inevitable that he'll take down the clowns who run the UCI and reveal all their sins. It's what everyone has been waiting for.
> 
> So what's the problem?


I doubt it will make a financial dent..

While it will be painful for Paul I do agree that the more that Pat and Hein act like complete idiots the better. It is good of them to reinforce their reputations as fools in such a public manner


----------



## goloso (Feb 4, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> So what's the problem?



To me this smacks of Fat Pat and Verbruggen's desperation. If what was published in the TH book is true then there will probably much more detailed and well documented evidence of UCI corruption in the LA USADA file. In the mean time the more ways they can paint themselves in the press as aggrieved, honest, dope fighting sport administrators the better they think they look. 

You should really go back and read Dr F's older posts. He has been way out ahead of pretty much every big doping announcement. Maybe he gets his info off twitter, maybe he is a member of the UCI, maybe he is the real Dr. Fasletti, I don’t know. This is usually the last place I look for doping news and I almost always find out what is up here before the news hits the cycling press. The vast majority of times it is from his posts.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I doubt it will make a financial dent..
> 
> While it will be painful for Paul I do agree that the more that Pat and Hein act like complete idiots the better. It is good of them to reinforce their reputations as fools in such a public manner


It shouldn't be all that painful for Paul. He's basically been asking for it. This is the big showdown. This is what he has been waiting for. To win this case would make a Kimmage a folk hero and lead to book deals, etc. He'll be up there with Woodward and Bernstien, Ida Tarbell, Emile Zola.

Plus, if Kimmage can prove his case, then this lawsuit will be unveiled as pure intimidation, and at a minimum, he should be able to recover his legal fees. After that, he can probably go after some kind of punitive damages. 

Of course, he actually has to prove his case for all this to happen. I can't imagine the UCI is going to do this without feeling pretty secure that they can walk away clean. Because if they lose, it's really going to hurt, and the whole organization could topple. With stakes that high, why would they pick on an "unemployed journalist?"

(By the way, the overwhelming majority of writers in the world are unemployed. That's the nature of the business of writing. It's a useless but overly emotional description, much like it would be to describe my parents as orphans. Technically, they both are, but it would be ridiculous to describe them that way.)


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

mohair_chair said:


> It shouldn't be all that painful for Paul. He's basically been asking for it. This is the big showdown. This is what he has been waiting for. To win this case would make a Kimmage a folk hero and lead to book deals, etc. He'll be up there with Woodward and Bernstien, Ida Tarbell, Emile Zola.
> 
> Plus, if Kimmage can prove his case, then this lawsuit will be unveiled as pure intimidation, and at a minimum, he should be able to recover his legal fees. After that, he can probably go after some kind of punitive damages.
> 
> ...


The UCI is used to losing. For years they have picked stupid battles and lost. They are not afraid to make fools of themselves

A bunch of petty thugs


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

It is odd that the UCI is only complaining now? We have known they are corrupt for years

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Cycling cash linked to Olympics


----------



## Kristatos (Jan 10, 2008)

Local Hero said:


> Again, I don't know much about Eu laws, but why would Kimmage even submit to the authority of a Swiss Court?


Switzerland is not a member of the EU. They still use their own laws for the most part, and their own currency. Probably there is some treaty with the EU regarding subpoenas, and all that stuff, but I don't know if Switzerland would or could compel Ireland to arrest the guy and ship him to CH. It could be one of those things where McQuaid et al are hoping Kimmage doesn't show up, and they can get a judgement against him if he doesn't come. UCI publishing already their full list of "witnesses" or whatever, would be part of that strategy. They've already said we got all these sycophants lined up to back us - your move PK. So now PK has to probably pay to fly some of his own witnesses in to Geneva or wherever. Seems like this whole thing is being set up to result in a one-sided trial with an 8K verdict that would be more symbolic than anything.


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

The UCI is disgusting. Going after someone taking a stand on doping and is unemployed. They might as we'll turn the UCI into the WWF, it basically already is. Nothing is real. Sky is a sham and most of the racers are just sheep that follow the omerta.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Pro Cycling will never clean up until the UCI cleans house, comes clean, and takes a stand.


----------



## Eretz (Jul 21, 2012)

I read that book in 1993, an Irish lent it to me. I read it on the RER from Marne-la-Vallée. I liked the part where he said he was so high he could barely feel his legs walking off the podium sign-ins to a race.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Verbruggen Won't Take Legal Action Against Hamilton | Cyclingnews.com

Hein is yelling at reporters and babbling like a mad man


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Verbruggen Won't Take Legal Action Against Hamilton | Cyclingnews.com
> 
> Hein is yelling at reporters and babbling like a mad man


Wow. He comes across in that piece as a raving jacka$$. Unbelievable that professional cycling is governed by such idiots.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Kristatos said:


> Switzerland is not a member of the EU. They still use their own laws for the most part, and their own currency. * Probably there is some treaty with the EU regarding subpoenas, and all that stuff*, but I don't know if Switzerland would or could compel Ireland to arrest the guy and ship him to CH. It could be one of those things where McQuaid et al are hoping Kimmage doesn't show up, and they can get a judgement against him if he doesn't come. UCI publishing already their full list of "witnesses" or whatever, would be part of that strategy. They've already said we got all these sycophants lined up to back us - your move PK. So now PK has to probably pay to fly some of his own witnesses in to Geneva or wherever. Seems like this whole thing is being set up to result in a one-sided trial with an 8K verdict that would be more symbolic than anything.


The Lugano Convention, an agreement among, inter alia, the EU and Switzerland, governs matters regarding civil jurisdiction relating to persons domiciled in one of the signatories. I once had a client who ended up in a Swiss court because of the Lugano Convention. Based on my experience with the Swiss courts (and Swiss lawyers) in that case, I would not want to be in Kimmage's shoes right now.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Verbruggen is absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

zero85ZEN said:


> Wow. He comes across in that piece as a raving jacka$$. Unbelievable that professional cycling is governed by such idiots.


He is a fool. Some of the more impressive examples



> The problem is we can't find Landis," Verbruggen told Cyclingnews as he poured himself a glass of wine






> "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'."


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

MarkS said:


> The Lugano Convention, an agreement among, inter alia, the EU and Switzerland, governs matters regarding civil jurisdiction relating to persons domiciled in one of the signatories. I once had a client who ended up in a Swiss court because of the Lugano Convention. Based on my experience with the Swiss courts (and Swiss lawyers) in that case, I would not want to be in Kimmage's shoes right now.


How does this work with a suit that looks to be a defamation suit when the laws between countries vary? What may be actionable in Switzerland may not be actionable in Ireland. Freedom of the press would be reduced to the rights of the most restrictive state.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Sounds like he's lost it, he's incoherent in half of his answers. He must know the moment of truth is fast approaching...


----------



## RkFast (Dec 11, 2004)

This sport is getting dangerously close to becoming a complete farce. Even just looking at Twitter feeds....I read Voigh babbling about his kids and I cant help but thinking...and wanting to tweet him...."So when did Riis ask YOU what "program" youre on [or whatever he asked Tyler]?" I tweeted Vroomen the other day about how nobody is beyond suspicion anymore and he got all indignant about it. 

The people in this sport, from one end to the other just dont get it at all and are complicit in the corruption. 

I suppose I was a pollyanna for a long time. But my eyes are open now and as a fan, Im not sure how much longer I can devote time, money and energy to such an circus.


----------



## nate (Jun 20, 2004)

Local Hero said:


> I'm sorry, I don't know the entire history. Did the Times and l'Equipe print Kimmage's articles?


The answer is at the first link in this thread.



> McQuaid and Verbruggen’s action was launched in January and has been taken against Kimmage personally, rather than against l’Equipe and his former employer, the Sunday Times. The UCI has reportedly pointed to articles in both publications as being the reason for its complaint.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

trailrunner68 said:


> How does this work with a suit that looks to be a defamation suit when the laws between countries vary? What may be actionable in Switzerland may not be actionable in Ireland. Freedom of the press would be reduced to the rights of the most restrictive state.


I do not know how the courts in the EU and Switzerland deal with different libel standards. However, this has been an issue between the British courts and the United States. Here is a link to an article that discusses the issue. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/opinion/23wed3.html Federal law now bars the enforcement in the United States of foreign libel judgments that conflict with the First Amendment.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

I am consistently amazed by Pat and Hein's willingness to embarrass themselves. They come across as total fools

Next up, they appeal the USADA case on jurisdictional grounds and lose badly at CAS


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

Eretz said:


> I read that book in 1993, an Irish lent it to me. I read it on the RER from Marne-la-Vallée. I liked the part where he said he was so high he could barely feel his legs walking off the podium sign-ins to a race.


Huh. I was on that train in 1993. Did you work at Disney too?? Can I have my book back now?


----------



## fontarin (Mar 28, 2009)

Yeah, the article on Cyclingnews was pretty crazy. I double checked twice to make sure I wasn't on Cyclismas when I was reading it, or it wasn't an old April 1 posting that someone dug up. He's a nutjob.


----------



## sir duke (Mar 24, 2006)

Get a load of this, Verbruggen quoted in Cycling News:



> 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."


 Verbruggen Won't Take Legal Action Against Hamilton | Cyclingnews.com


Of course Verbruggen won't sue The Sunday Times and set foot in an English courtroom. Libel laws in the U.K. are harsh; if you lose you lose big time and can even wind up in jail, just ask Jeffrey Archer or Jonathan Aitken ( two British government ministers who sued British newspapers for libel, perjured themselves in court and were given jail terms.)
It seems the UCI would also like their action against Landis to quietly disappear. According to Verbruggen 'they can't find him'. It's transparently obvious that the UCI would back away from action against Hamilton. He's an 'insider', knows too much about the Armstrong/UCI nexus, even though previously guilty of lying he is almost certainly telling the truth now. 
Kimmage is already 'persona non grata' with the UCI, and further removed from the sport's recent history as far as being an active participant is concerned. Much less to lose going after the 'little man'.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Ireland should not hand over Kimmage to Switzerland. I have issue with a country who stays "neutral" but yet somehow can demand other countries to hand over their citizens??? BeeEss!

I'm starting to shift my position regarding Armstrong/UCI from dislike to hate.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

If he can't stand the heat........


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

AntiUSADA said:


> If he can't stand the heat........


Hey, there's still 3/4ths of a page worth of threads that you haven't bumped up yet with hilarious one-liners Get cracking.


----------



## AntiUSADA (Sep 22, 2012)

mpre53 said:


> Hey, there's still 3/4ths of a page worth of threads that you haven't bumped up yet with hilarious one-liners Get cracking.


Don't blame me, the forum requires you to have five posts to even start a thread and ten posts to do a link. I had to get the posts some how.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

AntiUSADA said:


> Don't blame me, the forum requires you to have five posts to even start a thread and ten posts to do a link. I had to get the posts some how.


Oh, sorry, my bad, you were being serious. I thought that you were auditioning for some Henny Youngman tribute show, or some other stand-up gig. :idea:


----------



## chaulk61 (Jan 20, 2009)

Kimmage Humbled By Defense Fund Support | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

chaulk61 said:


> Kimmage Humbled By Defense Fund Support | Cyclingnews.com


Cool. I like reading what he says much more than I like hearing him speak. 

Does Switzerland have the equivalent of the ACLU? If not, I wonder if a Swiss attorney would consider defending him for a nominal amount.


----------



## Zipp0 (Aug 19, 2008)

chaulk61 said:


> Kimmage Humbled By Defense Fund Support | Cyclingnews.com


I hardly ever donate to anything, but I donated to that. Kimmage has been right for so long and now this ill timed lawsuit by the UCI is arriving just as the chickens are coming home to roost. Kimmage will have all the ammo he needs when the USADA releases the full Armstrong file. (they announced that the file will be released this year)


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/cycling-must-come-clean-from-top-down-20120926-26kzv.html


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

http://youtu.be/_udFWNqymfY


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

$37,000+


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Damn. I put 5$ when it was still under 17,000$, and I thought it was already getting pretty big.


----------



## gh1 (Jun 7, 2008)

My buddy and I put in $50


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

The number of people donating is just as important for making a statement against the UCI as the total. Even if you can only throw in a few bucks, do it.


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

That was my point of view. I couldn't put too much in, but every dollar helps.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

Kimmage is gearing up for a fight.

Kimmage selecting legal defence backing as


----------



## moskowe (Mar 14, 2011)

Hans and Pat are f****d. I can't wait for everything that's going to go down in the next few months. In a way it's a bit scary, there' s going to be a need for someone to pick up all the pieces after everything falls apart.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I am consistently amazed by Pat and Hein's willingness to embarrass themselves. They come across as total fools
> 
> Next up, they appeal the USADA case on jurisdictional grounds and lose badly at CAS


Hopefully USADA has their case fully in order and it never even makes it to CAS.

Its just a shame USADA was founded in what? 2000? Then it takes until 2012 to investigate, charge and sanction despite all the rumors and indications of doping? That in itself raises questions.......


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

donated


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

slegros said:


> Hopefully USADA has their case fully in order and it never even makes it to CAS.
> 
> Its just a shame USADA was founded in what? 2000? Then it takes until 2012 to investigate, charge and sanction despite all the rumors and indications of doping? That in itself raises questions.......


UCI did not sign the WADA code until August 2004. This means only 1 of Armstrong's soon to be stripped Tours had WADA testing. 

If you are concerned about why Armstrong's obvious doping was ignored for years I suggest you look to the UCI for an answer


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

slegros said:


> Hopefully USADA has their case fully in order and it never even makes it to CAS.
> 
> Its just a shame USADA was founded in what? 2000? Then it takes until 2012 to investigate, charge and sanction despite all the rumors and indications of doping? That in itself raises questions.......


I expect that's one of the reasons it's taking so long to get the file to the UCI. They want to be sure there are no holes for them to squirm out of.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> UCI did not sign the WADA code until August 2004. This means only 1 of Armstrong's soon to be stripped Tours had WADA testing.
> 
> If you are concerned about why Armstrong's obvious doping was ignored for years I suggest you look to the UCI for an answer


No doubt the UCI played a huge part, and there are some very serious concerns there.

Now I'm honestly confused, because the UCI signed onto WADA in 2004, did USADA also have jurisdiction since 2004, or since its inception in 2000 as LA is an American athlete?

If the FDA and USADA didn't share evidence, and what USADA will be presenting to the UCI and WADA is their own work product, it just makes me wonder about the timing. Better late than never, but why now?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

slegros said:


> Better late than never, but why now?


Have you ever heard of someone named Floyd Landis? You might want to read up on him.


----------



## slegros (Sep 22, 2009)

asgelle said:


> Have you ever heard of someone named Floyd Landis? You might want to read up on him.


Rumors and eye-witnesses have been around pretty much since LA began his cancer treatment. The traced test from 1999, Frankie and Betsy Andreu, Mike Anderson... There was a lot before Floyd. Its just sad that it took as long as it did to reach a critical mass.


----------



## Fogdweller (Mar 26, 2004)

aclinjury said:


> donated


Me too. Even if I didn't admire Kimmage, this is wrong to go after journalists, especially the ones that have been right all along.


----------



## trailrunner68 (Apr 23, 2011)

slegros said:


> Rumors and eye-witnesses have been around pretty much since LA began his cancer treatment. The traced test from 1999, Frankie and Betsy Andreu, Mike Anderson... There was a lot before Floyd. Its just sad that it took as long as it did to reach a critical mass.


I thought this was the Kimmage thread. My mistake.


----------



## irish (Apr 8, 2004)

*Suit Needs to Continue*

The UCI suspending the defamation case against Kimmage is not good news:

Leaves the matter in an uncertain stage
Prevents examination of the UCI, McQuack, and VerLoser under oath
Stands out as a publicity stunt so that they can quietly drop the matter at a later time.

Given Kimmage's recent tweets to unleash hell on the UCI(https://twitter.com/PaulKimmage) , I hope he releases all of the evidence he's gathered in a similar fashion as to what USADA did with the Armstrong Reasoned Decision. By making the entire matter public, USADA scored a huge victory over the UCI and forced the UCI to have to act properly and publicly. Whether or not the UCI really changes is a matter yet to be seen. Given the current leadership, I'm not hopeful.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

irish said:


> The UCI suspending the defamation case against Kimmage is not good news:
> 
> Leaves the matter in an uncertain stage
> Prevents examination of the UCI, McQuack, and VerLoser under oath
> ...


Is that what came out of the "special meeting" of their managing board this morning?


----------



## irish (Apr 8, 2004)

mpre53 said:


> Is that what came out of the "special meeting" of their managing board this morning?


yes. It's one of the items out of it. They also -
- will leave any of Armstrong's vacated wins blank from 1999-2005. They also stated they will not adjust results for any other cases going forward for that time period.
- Asked Armstrong to return all prize money
- setup an commission/panel to investigate the UCI's dealings with Armstrong based upon the issues presented in the USADA Reasoned Decision for Armstrong.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

irish said:


> - setup an commission/panel to investigate the UCI's dealings with Armstrong based upon the issues presented in the USADA Reasoned Decision for Armstrong.


Hopefully not to be chaired by Pat.


----------



## LostViking (Jul 18, 2008)

From Cycling News today:

"The [UCI] committee has also agreed to establish an external commission to examine the allegations made about the UCI's handling of the Armstrong case, and the UCI will suspend its legal action against Paul Kimmage, pending the commission's findings".

The Kimmage case is supended - probably good for the Pat, Hein and the UCI as well as more bad news would likely ensue. Also, at this time, it looks very bad for the UCI to be trying to put a lid on a journalist.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mpre53 said:


> Hopefully not to be chaired by Pat.


LOL no kidding. It's like Wall Street Croonies deciding to police themselves. Riiight.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

UCI is back pedaling big time here. They're afraid now, REALLY AFRAID.

It's a litlte too bad that Kimmage doesn't have the money to go after the UCI and force the issue. I wish he did, because it be nice to see David take down Goliath. It's like Goliath goes after David intentionally, and Goliath gets slaughtered. It would be Biblical.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

LostViking said:


> From Cycling News today:
> 
> "The [UCI] committee has also agreed to establish an external commission to examine the allegations made about the UCI's handling of the Armstrong case, and the UCI will suspend its legal action against Paul Kimmage, pending the commission's findings".
> 
> The Kimmage case is supended - probably good for the Pat, Hein and the UCI as well as more bad news would likely ensue. Also, at this time, it looks very bad for the UCI to be trying to put a lid on a journalist.


When this news came out, I immediately started imagining what the meeting was like. Was this a 'run and hide' maneuver? A 'now's not the time to look like we're trying to suppress the media' maneuver? A 'Pat, what sort of moron are you?' conversation? All of the above?

In any case, I'm guessing Pat's well down tonight's bottle of Jameson already. Couldn't have been a fun day to be him.


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> UCI is back pedaling big time here. They're afraid now, REALLY AFRAID.
> 
> It's a litlte too bad that Kimmage doesn't have the money to go after the UCI and force the issue. I wish he did, because it be nice to see David take down Goliath. It's like Goliath goes after David intentionally, and Goliath gets slaughtered. It would be Biblical.


Now what does he do with the money that was raised for his defense fund? I guess he could put it in escrow in case the suit is renewed. It was only "suspended", not dropped---whatever that means in the Swiss legal system.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

mpre53 said:


> Now what does he do with the money that was raised for his defense fund? I guess he could put it in escrow in case the suit is renewed. It was only "suspended", not dropped---whatever that means in the Swiss legal system.


How much was in the fund? Last time I donated (3weeks ago) it was something like $47,000ish USD. Pretty sure some of that has already been spent on legal advice. He would just keep it for future use. I'm ok with him keeping what's left of the money because I don't think he's gonna become rich out of this donation.

Besides, I don't think he's out of the woods as far as dealing with the legal expenses.

At this point, I have to assume that Pat and the UCI may change their mind out of spite, and Kimmage will be forced to spend money again. Can't take the corrupt too lightly.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

He should put half of the money in a trust and use the other half to fund a PR campaign exposing corruption in the UCI; the best defense is a good offense.


----------



## Data_God (Oct 9, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> He should put half of the money in a trust and use the other half to fund a PR campaign exposing corruption in the UCI; the best defense is a good offense.


Learned that from Lance did you ? <lol>


Bill


----------



## mpre53 (Oct 25, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> How much was in the fund? Last time I donated (3weeks ago) it was something like $47,000ish USD. Pretty sure some of that has already been spent on legal advice. He would just keep it for future use. I'm ok with him keeping what's left of the money because I don't think he's gonna become rich out of this donation.
> 
> Besides, I don't think he's out of the woods as far as dealing with the legal expenses.
> 
> At this point, I have to assume that Pat and the UCI may change their mind out of spite, and Kimmage will be forced to spend money again. Can't take the corrupt too lightly.


Last I heard it was around $60,000. I guess he could put it in a rainy day fund, just in case the suit gets restored.


----------



## pianopiano (Jun 4, 2005)

mpre53 said:


> Last I heard it was around $60,000. I guess he could put it in a rainy day fund, just in case the suit gets restored.


The Paul Kimmage Defense Fund currently sits at $83,850 (as of 1:01PM EST, Oct. 27/12), according to NYVelocity Chipin.


----------

