USADA Banned Armstrong new Doping Allegations

maquisard · **Posted:** Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:34 pm

Hard to look at Skins decision to bring a case against the UCI as anything more than a very cynical PR move...

Don't buy Skins

worstshotever · **Joined:** Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:07 pm **Posts:** 542

What are Skins?

I guess I could google but don't want to.

swinter · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:15 am

compression wear.

I started to read the president's blog on the suit, but got turned off after the first couple of sentences.

if someone else has the patience to read it, let us know if there was any there there.

Mr.Gib · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:45 am

artray wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/skins-launch-dollar-2-million-law-suit-against-uci-over-handling-of-anti-doping-fight" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This ain't good . The Armstrong doping was years ago .It's as though he won the last tour .

But the full evidence has only now come to light.

As for whether it is a cynical pr move maybe, but fact is if another party through negligence causes damage to your property (in this case brand image) than you may have a claim.

The only thing I see wrong with the suit is the limited chance of recovery from the UCI. A bad investment from a business point of view.

sawyer · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:35 am

Unless there was some reassurance to Skins from the UCI that the period 1999-2006 was cleaned up then this is totally groundless. The fact LA rode and cheated post Skins entry into the market isn't really relevant as his name was made prior to that, and they're talking here about reptutational damage.

maquisard · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:38 am

I'm planning on suing Skins regarding the benefits of compression garments. :thumbup:

http://adisonline.com/sportsmedicine/Ab ... ent.3.aspx

djconnel · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 9:37 am

They damage to the sport is now, whether or not Armstrong's wins were during Skin's involvement.

My read on the suit isn't that they expect damages, although they briefly say they do. The main focus is on McQuaid and Verbuggen must go. And I completely agree.

If McQuaid and Verbuggen are tossed, and real change is observed to be implemented, the I believe Skins considers the suit successful.

It's sponsors who have the real power in cycling, and they are the ones who are best able to apply the true muscle to take Verbruggen and McQuaid down.

sawyer · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:26 am

@dj - absolutely the damage is now, but equally if Skins entered into the bargain in 2008 thinking the UCI had sorted out doping (presumably at most from that point onwards given 2007's events!!) , they can hardly complain that doping with a major reputational impact has been uncovered pre-dating 2008 ... unless the UCI gave explicit "there are no more skeletons in the cupboard" type assurances.

elviento · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:32 am

They don't have a case... UCI doesn't owe any kind of duty to the sponsors, nor did they take any action to induce the sponsors to enter the sport.

That said, it's hard to side with UCI for what they have done to the sport though.

CarlosFerreiro · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 11:41 am

artray wrote:

This was my point "USADA where willing to let results stand even though they know he won them doped ."
Nothing to do with Armstrongs guilt, You keep reading things that are not there.

The way I understood it was USADA saying that cooperation from LA would have meant that the 8 year SOL would apply, or at least that USADA would not push for extension on conspiracy grounds, and it would therefore only be the 2004 and 2005 tours that would still fall within that SOL period.
But I can't remember if I read that, or just came to that conclusion myself.

majklnajt · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:17 pm

You`ve read that.

monkeyburger · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:14 pm

A picture is worth a thousand words. A buddy of mine in Austin snapped this yesterday...

Attachment:

broken lance.JPG [ 35.68 KiB | Viewed 379 times ]

monkeyburger

artray · **Joined:** Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:08 pm **Posts:** 1366

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/obree-c ... hum-ocracy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Telling it like it is .

djconnel · **Posted:** Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:27 pm

Some interesting EPO-transfusion-threshold power estimates.

Estimate is Lance 3.0 went from 5.7 ( VO2 max ml/min/kg of 83 ) to 6.2 W/kg with doping ( 90 ml/min/kg ) within biological passport constraints. Lance 2.0 could get to 6.7 W/kg with doping ( EPO 16 gm/dL) + transfusions (2.37 liters) for a VO2 max = 97.5 ml/kg/min . Quickie 500 ml of saline is good to reduct HCT% from 50.5% to 49.7%.

HammerTime2 · **Posted:** Tue Nov 06, 2012 7:43 pm

Hold on to your hats folks. Just when we thought it couldn't get any bigger, comes the shocking word which will rock the professional cycling world to its very foundation. David George (who the heck is that?), a USPS teammate of Lance Armstrong in 1999-2000, has been caught doping with EPO Former Armstrong teammate fails test . Who's next, the assistant shoeshine boy?

USADA Banned Armstrong new Doping Allegations

Who is online