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

kincsem · 22-09-2012 03:50PM

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

TheBlaaMan · 22-09-2012 05:38PM

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 · 22-09-2012 08:26PM

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 · 22-09-2012 08:48PM

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 · 23-09-2012 05:41PM

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

Beasty · 23-09-2012 06:29PM

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 · 23-09-2012 06:31PM

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 · 23-09-2012 09:35PM

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 · 23-09-2012 10:04PM

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 · 24-09-2012 07:13AM

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 · 24-09-2012 09:44AM

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

Junior · 24-09-2012 11:37AM

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

Bambaata · 24-09-2012 12:20PM

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 · 24-09-2012 12:20PM

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 · 24-09-2012 12:33PM

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 · 24-09-2012 02:55PM

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 · 24-09-2012 03:15PM

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 · 24-09-2012 03:23PM

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 · 24-09-2012 04:16PM

Kimmage defense fund over 20k now !

http://www.cyclismas.com/

Trojan · 24-09-2012 06:27PM

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 · 24-09-2012 07:01PM

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 · 24-09-2012 08:32PM

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 · 25-09-2012 01:02PM

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

buffalo · 26-09-2012 09:17AM

Fund at $35,000 - woah!

RobFowl · 26-09-2012 09:50AM

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

CheGuedara · 26-09-2012 10:44AM

Whole debacle discussed well on RKP today

Morrisseeee · 26-09-2012 12:21PM

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

VinylJunkie · 26-09-2012 12:49PM

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

Aln_S · 26-09-2012 02:47PM

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

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

Lumen · 26-09-2012 02:56PM

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.

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

Comments