So this ruling from Switzerland in favour of the UCI over Landis. Does it effectively mean Floyd can't say the UCI covered up a positive result - because it has been ruled by that court there was no positive to cover up therefore Floyd is making shit up? If so how would that affect the USADAs case that here was a cover up? That would then benefit Lance would it not?

Please correct if that is not how it is.

The Swiss court hasn't read the USADA reasoned decision against Armstrong, and the evidence against the others named in the charging letter hasn't been made public either.

Since the court wasn't privy to any of this information and Landis didn't contest the case, the court proceeded on behalf of McQuaid and Verbruggen.

Easier to bully around small fries like Kimmage and Landis. It sends a message to anyone else who may open their mouths and critique the UCI.

_________________
Check out the latest controversies in sport-

http://berzin.blogspot.com/

correct me if i'm wrong but isnt this ruling completely meaningless.

a. swiss court as J pointed wasn't privy to the evidence which supposingly are somewhere in the custody of USADA

b. if Floyd called Pat or UCI liars etc. in a lets say US newspaper, would that ruling of the Swiss really help UCI seek compensation?

c. the message (again, given what's been emerging for past few weeks is supported with evidence) is UCI is after small fish cause they know they're deep in shit of their own, and such PR temporary saves the day for them. an analogy to Lehman Brothers who kept on selling with smiling faces till the very end comes to mind

That time of the month hey prendrefeu...?

_________________
"It never gets easier, you just go faster..." - Greg Lemond

"Because technology alone is a poor substitute for experience." - Richard Sachs

so did everyone read the story in Cyclingnews where Armstrong is asking everyone to "move on"? If that wasn't an admission of past deeds (read the article, he wouldn't call it guilt), I don't know what is.

No -- an admission of guilt would be:

"Yes, I used illegal methods during each of my Tour victories, as did all of my principal competition. But now I'm looking towards the future."

_________________
http://djconnel.blogspot.com/
Fuji SL/1
Send your data to Weight Weenie listings!

Here it is.
Yes, strange indeedy, LOL.

Armstrong continues to laugh while Landis calls Pat and the UCI a lot of insulting names near one of Switzerlands many boarders quite legally.

_________________
I never took drugs to improve my performance at any time. I will be willing to stick my finger into a polygraph test if anyone with big media pull wants to take issue. If you buy a signed poster now it will not be tarnished later. --Graeme Obree

Respect to the two. That's about the ratio I'd expect with the US public.

They can decide to take all his wins away. But they cant decide who will like and support him!

_________________
EX Colnago C50
TREK Madone 5.9 SL #7

I don't think so majklnajt. If the UCI upholds the USADA decision on Lance Armstrong, then the UCI could sue you in Swiss court if you post that you like him on a publicly accessible website such as this.

This must be a joke

_________________
EX Colnago C50
TREK Madone 5.9 SL #7

meanwhile, Ekimov is said to manage Katusha in the next season

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/confirm ... tusha-team

can you smell that? that's the wind of change in cycling, blowing away the doping era

Just like Yates being a DS at Team Sky, how is it any different?