http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-ed-armstrong-foundation-20121019,0,6961834.story

ICU has sided with the USADA, and stripped Lance of his titles and served him a life ban.

le Tour board will likely do the same.   

Lover or hater, it is very sad day for the cycling world.   

Quote from: DesmoDiva on October 22, 2012, 05:09:37 AM
le Tour board will likely do the same.  

Prudhomme is having a press conference later today.  Presumably to declare no winner 1999-2005.

I'm guessing SCA will sue again for the contract bonuses paid.  It will be interesting to see if any other sponsors go after bonuses.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling-big-reveal-of-cancer-jesus-3266380.html

video and story is interesting


mitt

International Cycling Union (UCI) President Pat McQuaid said in Geneva he was "sickened" by the USDA findings, adding, "Lance Armstrong has no place in cycling.… He deserves to be forgotten."

McQuaid's comments are insulting.  He was a total enabler in all of this.

Corruption in the UCI is the final domino that needs to fall.

Oakley is out now as well. 

Quote from: stateprez on October 22, 2012, 05:57:03 PM
McQuaid's comments are insulting.  He was a total enabler in all of this.

Corruption in the UCI is the final domino that needs to fall.

Oakley is out now as well. 

+1

The slander lawsuit McQuad has against Paul Kimmage is a joke at this point.

mitt

Here's the thing,
sponsors paid for exposure during the race.
they got it.
how can they ask for the money back?

Quote from: Raux on October 23, 2012, 07:23:24 AM
Here's the thing,
sponsors paid for exposure during the race.
they got it.
how can they ask for the money back?

because you are using common sense...and they feel slighted and therefore common sense went out the window because money is involved!...but I do agree with you.

Quote from: zooom on October 23, 2012, 08:14:59 AM
because you are using common sense...and they feel slighted and therefore common sense went out the window because money is involved!...but I do agree with you.

+1

Quote from: Raux on October 23, 2012, 07:23:24 AM
Here's the thing,
sponsors paid for exposure during the race.
they got it.
how can they ask for the money back?

The question is over victory bonuses, not all contract payments.

The original SCA lawsuit was over $12 million for an insurance payment taken out by his team, for his contract bonus with the team for winning 7 consecutive tours.  AKA he was due from the team $2 million for winning 2 in a row, $4 million for 3 in a row, etc.  

Lance won that suit, if I understand it correctly, because doping would not nullify a victory under the clauses of the contract.  Now that he didn't win, period, he's probably going to lose/settle.

Pure speculation on my part, but I'd think he has victory/stage win bonuses with all of his sponsors that are independent of a traditional sponsorship payment.  Aka they're still paying for their exposure.

If you're interested in killing a couple of hours on this, Lance's entire deposition in the '05 SCA case has been posted on YouTube.  They explain the bonuses in part 1, and I think part 2 is where the Betsy Andreu/doping questioning begins.

1 of 10:
lance01

so where the hell is the evidence?  did I miss a link somewhere???

no evidence, just accusations and 'bought' testimonies

There is NONE!!! 

It's all hear say.