Kimmage seeks criminal investigation into Vebruggen/McQuaid - Mod Warning Post #1

RobFowl

Junior wrote: »

Had a read of that .. it only says

General administrative motions can be sent to the Cycling Ireland Office to be received by 1700 hours on 05th October 2012.

Is there a form to be completed ? Can anyone raise a motion etc ?

I think motions have to come from a club (but open to correction). Might be best to contact the CI office directly and get clarity.

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

I think motions have to come from a club (but open to correction). Might be best to contact the CI office directly and get clarity.

Just checked the Memorandum & Articles - it's the clubs that get the votes, and by implication they (and the Board) would get to propose the resolutions - that's what has happened in prior years also

morana

Junior wrote: »

Had a read of that .. it only says

General administrative motions can be sent to the Cycling Ireland Office to be received by 1700 hours on 05th October 2012.

Is there a form to be completed ? Can anyone raise a motion etc ?

The motions have to be submitted by 5th October. As far as I know it comes from a club and has to be sent to CI office. So put your motion down and submit it. I will check the exact regs and get back to you.

Motions usually are used to change rules and Technical Regulations. This one doesnt fall into that category soI dont know if that wuold be accepted. Worth a shot though

Beasty

morana wrote: »

Motions usually are used to change rules and Technical Regulations. This one doesnt fall into that category soI dont know if that wuold be accepted. Worth a shot though

It's an AGM, and I would have thought it should be standard practice to allow the voting members to propose what could be in effect a "No confidence" motion in McQuaid. That's pretty much how members organisations (and indeed corporates) work.

What CI does with it though would be a different matter and would depend on the wording of the motion. I guess it could be the prompt for CI to put a no confidence motion in McQuaid to the equivalent UCI meeting (on the assumption that the UCI works in a similar way with the national federations being allowed to propose motions)

It would be quite interesting to see what empowers a club to propose such a resolution in the first place - ie would their Committee have the power to do this, or would they need to call their own EGM to get the votes of their own members. If the latter, the notices of meetings required would make it virtually impossible to get something in time for the CI AGM

morana

Beasty wrote: »

It's an AGM, and I would have thought it should be standard practice to allow the voting members to propose what could be in effect a "No confidence" motion in McQuaid. That's pretty much how members organisations (and indeed corporates) work.

What CI does with it though would be a different matter and would depend on the wording of the motion. I guess it could be the prompt for CI to put a no confidence motion in McQuaid to the equivalent UCI meeting (on the assumption that the UCI works in a similar way with the national federations being allowed to propose motions)

It would be quite interesting to see what empowers a club to propose such a resolution in the first place - ie would their Committee have the power to do this, or would they need to call their own EGM to get the votes of their own members. If the latter, the notices of meetings required would make it virtually impossible to get something in time for the CI AGM

No it can come from the club thru the officers of the club. I think it would be fair enough for the members to put a vote of no confidence in me for example who is a serving board member however for somebody who is in effect is not an employee or a serving director I am not sure.

Undercover Elephant

I am looking at the UCI's Constitution: http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&LangId=1

Article 29 says that Congress has the power to dismiss members of the Management Committee, which includes the President.

Article 31 says:

Article 31
1. The agenda of the Congress shall be drawn up by the Management Committee.
2. A federation wishing to include one or more items in the agenda of the Congress, or to put a
question to the Management Committee, shall submit its draft proposals stating the reasons on
which they are based or the text of its question, in English or in French, to the registered office
of the UCI at least ninety days before the date of the Congress.
3. With the exception of alterations to the Constitution, any question not on the agenda of the
Congress can be added to be discussed and voted on by the Congress at the request of fifteen
federations.
4. Except in cases where the preceding point applies, no vote shall be taken on any question
which is not on the agenda.

So from CI's point of view, what you would need is a resolution mandating its representative at Congress to:
(a) propose a motion to dismiss McQuaid from the Management Committee, for reasons ABCDEF, in accordance with Article 31 of the UCI Constitution;
(b) vote in favour of any motion of another federation to dismiss McQuaid;
(c) if time is too short, to solicit support from other federations to change the agenda so as to add a motion to dismiss McQuaid, or to support any such change proposed by another federation.

morana

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

I am looking at the UCI's Constitution: http://www.uci.ch/templates/UCI/UCI2/layout.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&LangId=1

Article 29 says that Congress has the power to dismiss members of the Management Committee, which includes the President.

Article 31 says:


So from CI's point of view, what you would need is a resolution mandating its representative at Congress to:
(a) propose a motion to dismiss McQuaid from the Management Committee, for reasons ABCDEF, in accordance with Article 31 of the UCI Constitution;
(b) vote in favour of any motion of another federation to dismiss McQuaid;
(c) if time is too short, to solicit support from other federations to change the agenda so as to add a motion to dismiss McQuaid, or to support any such change proposed by another federation.

congress was today I think!

Surinam

Does anyone know if McQuaid was asked about Kimmage being sued at today's press conference?

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/other/2012/0922/1224324288708.html

Edit: yes he was - http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-reluctant-to-elaborate-on-kimmage-case

Flandria

Surinam wrote: »

Does anyone know if McQuaid was asked about Kimmage being sued at today's press conference?

http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/other/2012/0922/1224324288708.html

Dont think so. Watch his hand-wringing here though, classic body language...

Surinam

^^You're right about the body language, that's one stressed man! I really hope he gets the boot in the near future.

kincsem

The fund to support Kimmage is touching $8,000. Kimmage will be able to buy lunch for the three of them. :cool:

TheBlaaMan

kincsem wrote: »

The fund to support Kimmage is touching $8,000. Kimmage will be able to buy lunch for the three of them. :cool:

It would appear that Paul Kimmage joined twitter today.......... @PaulKimmage

dermur

Seems like the UCI employ the exact same strategy as LA when dealing with controversy. Deny...attempt to discredit those involved...threat of legal action...assuming the pattern is followed, we can expect this to be quietly dropped a day or two before going to court.

The tax man

Flandria wrote: »

Dont think so. Watch his hand-wringing here though, classic body language...
<snip>

Sooo,that's what an acid trip looks like. I'm freakin' out man....the hands.:eek:

Lusk Doyle

This will be such an easy defence in tort it's ridiculous.

Beasty

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

This will be such an easy defence in tort it's ridiculous.

He's being sued under Swiss Law isn't he? They have a civil rather than common law system. I personally have no idea how this could play out under Swiss law

Lusk Doyle

Beasty wrote: »

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

This will be such an easy defence in tort it's ridiculous.

He's being sued under Swiss Law isn't he? They have a civil rather than common law system. I personally have no idea how this could play out under Swiss law

We have a combination of both. A tort is a civil wrong.

Bunnyhopper

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

We have a combination of both. A tort is a civil wrong.

Is there actually two different distinctions here? I mean (1) civil/criminal and (2) civil/common. We have civil and criminal law but all under a common law system. The Swiss have a civil law system.

Or something like that…

(IANAL: can you tell?)

Surinam

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Is there actually two different distinctions here? I mean (1) civil/criminal and (2) civil/common. We have civil and criminal law but all under a common law system. The Swiss have a civil law system.

Or something like that…

(IANAL: can you tell?)

Correct. We have a common law system (as do most former British colonies) and the system of law a lot of the continent has inherited is known as the civil law system. A key difference between the two is common law tendency to rely on judge-made law whereas in civil law countries a lot of the law is codified in massive statutes. Another distinction sometimes pointed to is that we have an 'adversarial' style to court cases whereas they tend to have 'inquisitorial' (whereby the judge really runs the show rather than counsel for both sides).

This has nothing to do with the distinction between criminal (where the State sues someone for an offence on behalf of the people) and civil cases (where two or more private citizens/corporations sue each other for civil wrongs).

Bit long winded and hope I'm correct!

Lusk Doyle

Surinam wrote: »

Bunnyhopper wrote: »

Is there actually two different distinctions here? I mean (1) civil/criminal and (2) civil/common. We have civil and criminal law but all under a common law system. The Swiss have a civil law system.

Or something like that…

(IANAL: can you tell?)

Correct. We have a common law system (as do most former British colonies) and the system of law a lot of the continent has inherited is known as the civil law system. A key difference between the two is common law tendency to rely on judge-made law whereas in civil law countries a lot of the law is codified in massive statutes. Another distinction sometimes pointed to is that we have an 'adversarial' style to court cases whereas they tend to have 'inquisitorial' (whereby the judge really runs the show rather than counsel for both sides).

This has nothing to do with the distinction between criminal (where the State sues someone for an offence on behalf of the people) and civil cases (where two or more private citizens/corporations sue each other for civil wrongs).

Bit long winded and hope I'm correct!

Like I said. Anyway, the defence should be a slam dunk for any legal team worth it's salt.

Morrisseeee

Come on Pat do the right thing.
I actually think Verbruggen is more at fault as he was an Armstrong fanboy !!

Junior

@Rob any further thoughts on raising the issue at the AGM ?

Bambaata

The defence fund is now at $17,922!! The bigger this gets the better as its a petition against UCI/McQuaid as it is.

12 sprocket

I find it difficult to understand what seems to be so posters personal aggo towards Pat mc Quaid who has been working very hard to clean up the sport with a lot of success. And regardless of the rights or wrongs of all the doping situation Mc Quaid never seemed to get any credit whatsoever from Paul Kimmage and a few other journalists for his success in challenging and changing the culture in cycling.

However his efforts do recieve a lot of recognition from other sports who are now putting in place the anti doping methods introduced under Mc Quaids watch.

RobFowl

12 sprocket wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand what seems to be so posters personal aggo towards Pat mc Quaid

From my point of view the main isuues with Pat McQuaid are
The 50% haematocrit which effectively legitimised EPO abuse (introduced which he was VP)
The decision to allow LA back without having been on the wereabouts system for the required 6 months
The decision to accept monies/donations from LA
The fact that the UCI didn't respond to David Millar (among others) letters re ingrained doping practices
The decison to sue multiple figures involved in antidoping or whistelblowing (Dick Pound, Floyd Landis and now Paul Kimmage)
The failure to properly address ingrained doping over a long period

Bunnyhopper

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

Like I said. Anyway, the defence should be a slam dunk for any legal team worth it's salt.

Fair enough - it just wasn't clear to me that that's what you were saying. I thought you were saying we have a combination of a civil law system and a common law system.

Anyway, I hope you're right about the defence though and the fund (~$20,000 already) should help make it fun

dermur

Speculation that LA could be called to testify under oath at Bruyneel's case.

Wouldn't it be fun if he was called at Kimmage vs Verbruggen/McQuaid?

Diarmuid

12 sprocket wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand what seems to be so posters personal aggo towards Pat mc Quaid who has been working very hard to clean up the sport with a lot of success. And regardless of the rights or wrongs of all the doping situation Mc Quaid never seemed to get any credit whatsoever from Paul Kimmage and a few other journalists for his success in challenging and changing the culture in cycling.

However his efforts do recieve a lot of recognition from other sports who are now putting in place the anti doping methods introduced under Mc Quaids watch.

Please tell me this is satire...

RobFowl

Kimmage defense fund over 20k now !

http://www.cyclismas.com/

Trojan

Fantastic stuff. He seems embarrassed about it, but I hope he puts it to good use.

Probably seen here before but I liked this one: "Union of Corrupt Individuals".

petethedrummer

12 sprocket wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand what seems to be so posters personal aggo towards Pat mc Quaid who has been working very hard to clean up the sport with a lot of success. And regardless of the rights or wrongs of all the doping situation Mc Quaid never seemed to get any credit whatsoever from Paul Kimmage and a few other journalists for his success in challenging and changing the culture in cycling.

However his efforts do recieve a lot of recognition from other sports who are now putting in place the anti doping methods introduced under Mc Quaids watch.

This websites disagrees with you..... http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/

They'll be posting a new piece of info everyday.

drogdub

petethedrummer wrote: »

This websites disagrees with you..... http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/

They'll be posting a new piece of info everyday.

Really enjoy the Velocast, probably the best cycling podcast out there, they're very knowledgable and often laugh out loud funny.

TheBlaaMan

http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,,12054_8108360,00.html

buffalo

Fund at $35,000 - woah!

RobFowl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25NvhFao-Bs

CheGuedara

Whole debacle discussed well on RKP today

Morrisseeee

Kimmage for President (of Ireland or UCI or something, fcek he deserves it at this stage)

VinylJunkie

Someone needs to make a "Ah here leave it out" video an send it to the UCI.

Aln_S

Anyone else noticed that Kimmage hasn't tweeted since yesterday morning?

I wonder if he was told to keep quiet (by his lawyers)

Lumen

Aln_S wrote: »

Anyone else noticed that Kimmage hasn't tweeted since yesterday morning?

I wonder if he was told to keep quiet (by his lawyers)

I have a vision of him sitting at his computer hitting refresh on that donations page and chuckling quietly to himself.

ashleey

I think watching Mcquaid getting booed presenting medals at the UCI RR at the weekend was better!

mistermatthew

Oh dear the UCI has done it this time. Through the donations option to help Paul Kimmage the fans finally have the opportunity to show their displeasure.

This whole rotting house is about to come falling down around the UCI and they haven't got the sense to get out before it does, they're still inside shouting down everyone who tells them to get out.

This when it hits is gonna be the scandal to end all scandals in sport.

TheBlaaMan

mistermatthew wrote: »

Oh dear the UCI has done it this time. Through the donations option to help Paul Kimmage the fans finally have the opportunity to show their displeasure.

This whole rotting house is about to come falling down around the UCI and they haven't got the sense to get out before it does, they're still inside shouting down everyone who tells them to get out.

This when it hits is gonna be the scandal to end all scandals in sport.

There may only be a little distinction, but strictly speaking (as I understand it, anyhow) its not the UCI that are suing Kimmage, but rather its Verbruggen and his puppet doing so.......

One wonders at the collateral damage these guys are effectively causing the UCI itself? They are so intricately interconnected that any backlash against the duo is effectively going to be severe on the organisation..........I wonder if the management committee of the UCI is in any position to move against its current and past presidents, should things get sticky?

RobFowl

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

There may only be a little distinction, but strictly speaking (as I understand it, anyhow) its not the UCI that are suing Kimmage, but rather its Verbruggen and his puppet doing so.......

There are 3 seperate parties suing Kimmage. The UCI as well as McQuaid and Verbruggen.

buffalo

RobFowl wrote: »

There are 3 seperate parties suing Kimmage. The UCI as well as McQuaid and Verbruggen.

Really? Everywhere I've read says McQ and Verbruggen for 8,000 Swiss francs each.

RobFowl

buffalo wrote: »

Really? Everywhere I've read says McQ and Verbruggen for 8,000 Swiss francs each.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-receives-uci-subpoena

Paul Kimmage has received a subpoena from the Swiss district court that will hear the defamation proceedings instigated against him by current UCI president Pat McQuaid, his predecessor Hein Verbruggen and the UCI itself.

TheBlaaMan

I stand corrected..........a plague on all their houses, in that case.

buffalo

Janey, I'm wrong all over the place today. I hate to see my organisation being used like that.

ROK ON

I understand from reading about the case that PK is looking forward to his day in court. What I do not understand is what sanction could apply if he was to choose not to cooperate with the subpoena and appear.

The alleged defense was committed in the UK and PK lives in Ireland. One could presumably decide to wipe ones backside with the summons given that one would hardly be extradited.

In any case the ****storm building against tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber is building momentum. I cannot see McQuaid surviving this. Surely the stakeholders - teams, race organisers, sponsors are saying drop this.

Although at this stage it would be disappointing not to give PK his day in court.

Will this be televised :-)

mistermatthew

ROK ON wrote: »

In any case the ****storm building against tweedle dumb and tweedle dumber is building momentum. I cannot see McQuaid surviving this. Surely the stakeholders - teams, race organisers, sponsors are saying drop this.

Although at this stage it would be disappointing not to give PK his day in court.

Will this be televised :-)

Not to be dramatic, but if this is televised I hope it goes down something like this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdFFCnYtbk

With mr. Kimmage playing the role of Galloway.