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

Dermot Illogical

Lusk Doyle wrote: »

More of a Moses character really.

Parted the Sea, aye?

Already got me coat.

Lusk Doyle

Dermot Illogical wrote: »

Parted the Sea, aye?

Already got me coat.

"And he parted his are$e and an enormous rupture was heard across the rented conference room. 'I am Moses.' said he. 'And I believe your attitude towards doping to be most unrightous and the work of the devil. I am here to smithe thee. Now fcuk off and let someone who actually respects others and life (other than their own) do some real work'"

He didn't actually say "open bracket 'other than their own' close bracket."

buffalo

Love Barry's blog. This piece actually brought a tear to my eye.

http://worldwidecyclesblog.com/2012/11/06/guinness-is-the-answer/

Hungrycol

Kimmage was at a my uncles funeral today. Sorry I didn't have a chat or at the least shake his hand. In other circumstances perhaps.

alfalad

Thought occurred to me when I saw he was suing Pat and Hein, I wonder is his hand being forced somewhat. Paul would have spent a reasonable bit of money on preparing his defense so far, money that if there is no court case he wouldn't get back in costs if/when he won and I don't think he would feel right taking it from the fund if he didn't get his day in court. I wonder did Pat and Hein know this, and hence why they sued for a small amount knowing the the costs would be greater than the amount being sought. Paul now has a harder job as he is not just defending himself but proving their guilt (sorry don't know the exact details of what he is suing them for), but to help recover the costs he has spent so far he has very little option but to go after them. I still think it has badly backfired on Pat and Hein but wonder if they ever had any intention of going all the way to court.

Beasty

Independent investigation stuff moved to the Armstrong thread

Beasty

alfalad wrote: »

Thought occurred to me when I saw he was suing Pat and Hein, I wonder is his hand being forced somewhat. Paul would have spent a reasonable bit of money on preparing his defense so far, money that if there is no court case he wouldn't get back in costs if/when he won and I don't think he would feel right taking it from the fund if he didn't get his day in court. I wonder did Pat and Hein know this, and hence why they sued for a small amount knowing the the costs would be greater than the amount being sought. Paul now has a harder job as he is not just defending himself but proving their guilt (sorry don't know the exact details of what he is suing them for), but to help recover the costs he has spent so far he has very little option but to go after them. I still think it has badly backfired on Pat and Hein but wonder if they ever had any intention of going all the way to court.

This is not Kimmage suing pat and Hein though - he's asking the local authorities to launch a criminal investigation. If they do so, I presume he would not be party to it, and hence would be unable to recover any costs anyway (although I am completely ignorant of Swiss law on this matter)

The amount they claimed off Kimmage in the first place was imo clearly aimed at him not bothering to defend hiself because of the costs involved - they were arguably looking for an easy win and it completely backfired

alfalad

Beasty wrote: »

This is not Kimmage suing pat and Hein though - he's asking the local authorities to launch a criminal investigation. If they do so, I presume he would not be party to it, and hence would be unable to recover any costs anyway (although I am completely ignorant of Swiss law on this matter)

The amount they claimed off Kimmage in the first place was imo clearly aimed at him not bothering to defend hiself because of the costs involved - they were arguably looking for an easy win and it completely backfired

Ah thanks for clearing that up i thought he was suing them. That's what I get for not being on the net for over a week and not reading enough detail.

joker77

http://crankpunk.com/2012/12/05/inga-thompsons-letter-to-pat-mcquaid/

By now, we all know that Lance’s samples from 1999 were re-tested in 2005 and they showed evidence of doping. A lot of people – including the UCI – went into full defensive mode and denied there was a problem. Do you want to know what I thought? I wanted to know how many more samples are out there. At this point, I am publicly urging that WADA and other doping agencies and governing bodies open up the freezers and test EACH and EVERY sample still available.

I, for one, want proof of my innocence. I’m not looking for medals or even stolen prize money at this point. I want my honor back. I was among those who made the right choice during the most difficult time in the sport. I want that on my résumé. I’m not the only one that wants proof of my bravery to make the right choice in the most difficult of situations.

I’m pretty sick of listening to these dopers whine about how hard it was to walk away because of the pressure.They just had to dope because of the peer pressure or they didn’t want to stand up and do the right thing. Frankly, it’s pathetic that they didn’t have the backbone to make the right choice under pressure. Really? I’m supposed to feel sorry for you? They need Spinagra. It helps you grow a spine under the pressures of doing the right thing. And now, they want to be coaches? Coaching our children! We DON’T want coaches that couldn’t do the right thing under pressure. We WANT men and women as coaches. coaches who can make the right choices! Hiring newly reformed ex-dopers will NOT inspire confidence in sponsors or the public. Only a COMPLETE purging can restore the confidence that has been lost.

Bluefoam

So, what's the story with cycling Ireland holding a vote as requested

morana

Bluefoam wrote: »

So, what's the story with cycling Ireland holding a vote as requested

I missed that!

When was it requested?

CheGuedara

Bluefoam wrote: »

So, what's the story with cycling Ireland holding a vote as requested

My guess is unless someone rallies the Clubs to demand a SGM to vote on the matter, then the discussion allowed after the AGM is as much influence as we will be allowed on the matter.

What's for sure is that an SGM won't be voluntarily offered to the members despite the widespread misgivings on the ground about McBruggen and his suitability to continue to lead the UCI.

Chips Lovell

Bluefoam wrote: »

So, what's the story with cycling Ireland holding a vote as requested

At the moment, there is nothing to vote on. McQuaid hasn't formally asked for renomination yet.

If he does, then its up to the board to decide if it wants to call an EGM. Or if the board doesn't call one, the clubs can.

At this stage, I believe the board will call one, given the level of feedback it has received on the issue.

Bluefoam

morana wrote: »

I missed that!

When was it requested?

at the AGM about a month ago

RobFowl

morana wrote: »

I missed that!

When was it requested?

Ask Ronnie Drew, I'm fairly sure he was there at the time..

Beasty

RobFowl wrote: »

Ask Ronnie Drew, I'm fairly sure he was there at the time..

T'was after the AGM though ...

TBH, calling an EGM (by either the Board or member clubs) at this time of the year would be very messy, as the "electorate" is determined by the number of registered members at each club, and the new membership year starts in January

The original suggestion was for a no confidence vote in McQuaid, but that moved on given McQuaid is expected to seek re-election next year, and is likely to require a CI nomination to do so. Hence rather than seek a no confidence vote I believe the "rebels" are asking for an EGM to allow the members a say on whether CI should nominate McQuaid

Given McQuaid has not even requested such a nomination (AFAIK), there is nothing at this stage to call an EGM on. If he does I would not expect it to be until some time in the new year, by which time hopefully the membership will have stablised following all the anticipated renewals. As alluded to above by Vlad I would hope CI would call an EGM given the clear reservations raised by a lot of members (many of whom have posted about their concerns on Boards). If CI don't call an EGM, it would then be a case of getting sufficient clubs on board to call for an EGM. It would be a complete pain given the practicalities of establishing exactly how many votes each club has at any one time, and having to contact them to request their support, but I am sure it could be done if necessary

My personal prediction is that McQuaid will "see the light" and decide not to seek re-election