Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

find_bruce wrote:

Ross wrote:The lawyer that is acting for Kimmage (who coincidently is the same one that SKINS Chairman Jamie Fuller is using) is reportedly doing it for free.

I don't think that can be correct. If Kimmage was getting free legal representation, there would be no need for fund that has raised over US$90,000 to "help defray legal costs incurred by Paul Kimmage while undertakking his defence against a defamation lawsuit bought by the UCI" - apart from anything else Kimmage would be aware of what happened to Landis for knowingly participating in a scheme to raised money on false pretences.

sogood wrote:Nothing is for free, especially lawyers. It's a calculated gamble by the lawyers and will take a deep cut in the financial transaction should they win or settle.

While you generally can't go wrong in bagging lawyers, your statement is not true of the entire profession. While it doesn't get much publicity there are actually lawyers who represent people for free - but being lawyers it is called pro-bono.

Keep in mind that Kimmage didn't start the fund.

Kimmage's defence funds would have been vital, as his defence could have required people such as expert witnesses to give evidence on what UCI could have done to stop doping (involving detailed comparison with other sports, WADA routines etc) as well as a lot of simple investigation - subpoenaing and trolling through gozillions of emails to see what the UCI whackers knew, identifying, contacting and interviewing witnesses and then transcribing the interviews so you can use the information, etc, etc etc.

The fact that a lawyer is prepared to work pro bono (and plenty of them do, with no publicity or reward) does not mean that forensic reports and hours of interviews with the right people giving the right information suddenly appear on your computer screen. These things cost money.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Keep in mind that Kimmage didn't start the fund.

& I never said he did - which is why I linked to the people who did in fact start it.

find_bruce wrote:

Ross wrote:The lawyer that is acting for Kimmage (who coincidently is the same one that SKINS Chairman Jamie Fuller is using) is reportedly doing it for free.

I don't think that can be correct. If Kimmage was getting free legal representation, there would be no need for fund that has raised over US$90,000 to "help defray legal costs incurred by Paul Kimmage while undertakking his defence against a defamation lawsuit bought by the UCI" - apart from anything else Kimmage would be aware of what happened to Landis for knowingly participating in a scheme to raised money on false pretences.

sogood wrote:Nothing is for free, especially lawyers. It's a calculated gamble by the lawyers and will take a deep cut in the financial transaction should they win or settle.

While you generally can't go wrong in bagging lawyers, your statement is not true of the entire profession. While it doesn't get much publicity there are actually lawyers who represent people for free - but being lawyers it is called pro-bono.

It is not often that barristers are free. So it is likely that the lawyer mentioned is doing all the filing of petitions, doing discovery and developing a case. There may still need to be a trial lawyer (such as a Barrister). I imagine that the action would be vigorously defended. That being the lengthy appeals, the use of a Barrister or similar, expert witnesses and so forth would still need to be paid for. Plus possibly getting his case underwritten in case costs go against him.

I can see a number quite a bit more than $90,000 being easily swallowed up in those circumstances.

Where do I start Colin ? A barrister no less likely to do pro bono work than any other lawyer. More fundamentally though, Verbruggen and McQuaid are suing Kimmage under Swiss law, which wll be decided by a Swiss court. Swiss law is not based on the English common law and, as far as I am aware, does not have the English tradition of independant trial lawyers. Yes if this case ever goes to trial, it is likely to be vigorously contested & swallow up a lot more than $90,000.

Further defamation very rarely involves any expert evidence. This is because the action revolves around facts - as I recall in this case the allegation that the UCI was corrupt.

While this is all very interesting (at least to me), it is entirely speculative - I have seen nothing from Kimmage or his lawyers that say they are working for free.

Given that Kimmage has crowdsourced $90k of contributed funds, I think he has an ethical obligation to share the arrangements and plans made with his lawyers, so long as it doesn't prejudice the case.

In any case, my crystal ball says that the UCI guys are about to enter into such a sh*tstorm of criticism and blame under the spotlight of the independent enquiry (http://www.sbs.com.au/cyclingcentral/ro ... commission) that's being set up, they will drop this case before it goes very far. Kimmage's lawyers just need to draw things out until the other developments overtake the suit.

Bruce...expert legal opinion?

UCI have already drooped ( or put on hold ) the case against Kimmage.
Kimmage is now saying that he is suing them back.

"The purpose of this independent commission is to look into the findings of the USADA report and ultimately to make conclusions and recommendations that will enable the UCI to restore confidence in the sport of cycling and in the UCI as its governing body," said President Pat McQuaid.

The UCI has committed that the Commission’s final report and recommendations will be published no later than 1 June 2013.

From those statements it would appear that the so called independent commission is to appointed by, and be overseen by the UCI.

If that is the case how independent will it actually be?

greyhoundtom wrote:

"The purpose of this independent commission is to look into the findings of the USADA report and ultimately to make conclusions and recommendations that will enable the UCI to restore confidence in the sport of cycling and in the UCI as its governing body," said President Pat McQuaid.

The UCI has committed that the Commission’s final report and recommendations will be published no later than 1 June 2013.

From those statements it would appear that the so called independent commission is to appointed by, and be overseen by the UCI.

If that is the case how independent will it actually be?

Coates is supposedly mates with McQuaid and Verbruggen and is allegedly corrupt himself. It's like asking a paedophile to look after a kindergarten
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pound-t ... -troubling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ross wrote:
Coates is supposedly mates with McQuaid and Verbruggen and is allegedly corrupt himself. It's like asking a paedophile to look after a kindergarten
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/pound-t ... -troubling" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

After reading that interview I have even less confidence in the "independent commission".

Is anyone suggesting Pound is independant or unbiased ? After all he settled a defamation suit brought by McQuaid, Verbruggen & the UCI by acknowledging his anti UCI comments "might have seemed excessive". If not being a member of the IOC is required, rule out Pound - been a member since 1978, sought to suceed Samaranch in 2001 but failed. He was the president of WADA for 5 of the 7 tdfs. He has been criticised by both the IOC ethics committee and by Emile Vrijman, the former head of the Netherlands’ antidoping agency in his report in 2006.

Dick Pound is many things, but independant and unbiased are not amoung them.

I am certainly not going to defend the UCI, but Pound's complaints arise out of a long history of animosity.

find_bruce wrote:Is anyone suggesting Pound is independant or unbiased ? After all he settled a defamation suit brought by McQuaid, Verbruggen & the UCI by acknowledging his anti UCI comments "might have seemed excessive". If not being a member of the IOC is required, rule out Pound - been a member since 1978, sought to suceed Samaranch in 2001 but failed. He was the president of WADA for 5 of the 7 tdfs. He has been criticised by both the IOC ethics committee and by Emile Vrijman, the former head of the Netherlands’ antidoping agency in his report in 2006.

Dick Pound is many things, but independant and unbiased are not amoung them.

I am certainly not going to defend the UCI, but Pound's complaints arise out of a long history of animosity.

Dick Pound was right about the UCI knowing about widespread doping and doing nothing about it. It's disingenous to blame Pound for Armstrong's cheating when we know the UCI received a "donation" from LA. You did make me laugh when referring to the Vrijman criticism of Pound. He authored the report commisioned by the UCI to cover up Armstrong's six positives from the 1999 TdF. There will be no change at the UCI until McQuaid resigns and drug testing is conducted by an independent body. The UCI is seeking to control the "independent" enquiry to prevent either of these two key reforms from happening.

[edited by moderator]

My long standing understanding is that Dick Pound was a johny-come-lately to the world of drug enforcement, having contol of the data that the IOC got on Eastern Bloc programes that came their way after the fall of the wall. That data is well and truly kept behind closed doors with nary a referernce to it except in cases where those who had been cheats, inadvertently or knowingly, have come forward in whaich case the book is thrown at them.

Pretty much a prime mover of the hear-no-evil, see-no-evil culture of the IOC in the Samaranch era and the personal ambition to toe the line in the hope of eventual elevation to the presidency. (That worked, didn't it?)

As a result I see little reason to afford him any respect in the matter of the UIC doing what he would not do in the IOC.

Coates also chose to let sleeping dogs lie as so any others at the top of the IOC did and do.

If the UCI had any gonads they'd get someone like WADA to appoint and oversea. But probably not in the interests of a culpable UCI.

If both the above comments are correct professional cycling is pretty well stuffed as far as starting anew with a clean slate is concerned in regards to those that control the sport.

It would appear from the outset that the Independent Commission report will do little other than place all the blame on LA, and give the UCI a nice whitewash.

UCI's compelling argument against inviting WADA to the party -

In the summer McQuaid told Cyclingnews that "Historically over the last 10 to 15 years there has been a political campaign against cycling by senior people within WADA and I don't think that's acceptable."

I prefer to interpret the interest of WADA into cycling under the UCI as efforts to battle an unhealthy culture of drugs. And now it seems unarguable that WADA had every right, nay - oblication, to be in their faces.

Cheers for WADA. Raspberries for UCI.

Lance posted this on Twitter this morning...





Maybe it is the before shot. Before he takes them all down.

This would be more accurate

beefa69 wrote:This would be more accurate

BWAHAHAHAHA^^^ the IV bag was the icing on that cake

Ha!

Lance Armstrong's trolling juices traffic to Mobli, the mobile photo-sharing site of which he's an investor: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovi ... s-traffic/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

.........and the end result of LA posting that photo.........

And now there is talk of a confession!

My thoughts here... http://norbs.tk/bz" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;