Indeed, and regardless of what you think of Kimmage, the UCI ´s gone for the easiest target on the food chain (or at least the one with less cash) and so that is worth a defence fund.
Me, I think they are all a confederacy of Dunces and Im going to spend my money on bikes, chicks and booze and Ill waste the rest.

They are also going after Floyd who like Kimmage is a former pro who doped and has subsequently shed much light on the subject. Should we support his legal efforts too? Slippery slope in my view...

When he provides the evidence to back up his claims, then I'll pass judgement in his favour. Until then it's just soundbites; and he loves hearing himself talk; so yes I have a negative opinion of him. People like Bassons have my respect, not Kimmage.

The "there's no evidence" ad nauseum thing...what's the threshold before there's now enough evidence?

_________________
- Zipp rims will break if you look at them too hard
- R-Sys wheels will spontaneously explode
- The ZG crankset will never, ever exist
- Everyone needs Lightweights, even if they're fat and old
- Parts actually made of metal are SO 10 years ago

No idea, I'm not a lawyer. You can take whatever view on it, but you don't know whether the UCI is corrupt or not. You take a judgement but you don't know; neither do I.

What is proven is that the press in general, in the UK anyway, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Every day, people take legal action against newspapers for telling lies (libel / slander). But they are normally the people who can afford it. The ordinary man in the street doesn't stand a chance and the media knows it.

So, any organisation that's accused of corruption is bound to defend itself for something that's a serious allegation. So far as the UCI are concerned they strike me as being a disorganised rabble. But that's only my 'opinion'.

So, "[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know, we don't know". Am I getting that right, or have I missed something?

_________________
- Zipp rims will break if you look at them too hard
- R-Sys wheels will spontaneously explode
- The ZG crankset will never, ever exist
- Everyone needs Lightweights, even if they're fat and old
- Parts actually made of metal are SO 10 years ago

Maybe you should ask Donald Rumsfeld.

You have a point about the suit against Floyd. But I don't see him in remotely the same category with Kimmage. For one thing, Kimmage was not by any means a systematic doper (it's been a while since I read the book, but wasn't it only a couple of times?), he never lied about it, never wrote a book claiming he rode clean, nor raised money for his defense on false pretenses.

To the contrary, he's been calling the profession on it's dirty practices since the get go.


Which, apparently, puts you way ahead of Hein Verbruggen. (See the link below.)


It sounds like intimidation to me: Go after the weak link with the least resources.

For those who haven't read the Verbruggen interview:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/verbruggen-wont-take-legal-action-against-hamilton

People seem to be responding. The fund has doubled since yesterday.

_________________
"I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of old ones." -- John Cage

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/phpBB ... 928#126928

1. Name one international sport Union that isn't plagued by corruption.
2. What about a large cash gift of an active cycling is legit for you?

Or how about these statements about and from Sylvia Schenk:





Now if look at Kimmage as a journalist and not a judge I'd say he should be allowed to say the UCI is corrupt.

But hey, don't let the facts and evidence confuse you

'There's a gentleman thats going round, turning the joint upside down, paul kimmage, yeah yeah yeah yeah'.(Kid Creole and the Cocoanuts)

You're the one who's confused. He's being judged for comments he made and presumably he will provide the 'evidence' and 'facts' to support his allegations in a court of law. Doesn't matter whether he's a journalist or not.

I've no problem with nailing Verbruggen (especially) or McQuaid, but they have the right to defend themselves, but I suppose that doesn't matter to you because you've already made up your mind that they are guilty. Send them to the gallows.

What kind of "evidence" and "facts" would Kimmage have?
His interviews from the same rides that USADA interviewed?
Interviews from the rider of old who no longer matter?
Does Kimmage have special access to evidence that he can present in a court of law?

_________________
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

You're right, Stella. It's people like Kimmage who are the problem. Just ask Pat McQuaid.

Going after journalists is how you're going to do anything about doping and corruption in cycling.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid ... mmage-case

_________________
Check out the latest controversies in sport-

http://berzin.blogspot.com/

If Kimmage is right about the UCI then he'd have little to fear from this legal action. And the publications who printed his work would stand by him...right?

If not, regardless of how right he is, if he can't withstand a minor matter like this he's in the wrong game. There are far bigger sharks.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

I think that's for the courts to decide, not me or you. I would hazard a guess that Verbruggen and McQuaid will get damages of 1 Swiss Franc. I think Millar's right that it's ill advised, but Kimmage has crossed the UCI's Rubicon and they'll all have their day in court to make the lawyers richer.