Road Cycling · Public discussion

UCI responds to Pound comments

Started by Jim Flom · · Last activity · 2 posts · 346 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
19 September 2005
Last activity
19 September 2005
Original author
Jim Flom
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
346
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "If Mr. Pound's contention had any truth, and he really believed the
    investigation was focused solely on who leaked information to L'Equipe, and
    he has no knowledge about who leaked information to L'Equipe, he would have
    no ability to aid the investigation and he would not have anything to
    withhold."

    http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8926.0.html

    JF

    --
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/flomblog/

  2. "Jim Flom " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:I7FXe.293197$on1.140864@clgrps13...

    Quoted message said:

    "If Mr. Pound's contention had any truth, and he really believed the
    investigation was focused solely on who leaked information to L'Equipe,
    and he has no knowledge about who leaked information to L'Equipe, he would
    have no ability to aid the investigation and he would not have anything to
    withhold."

    http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8926.0.html

    You guys read into it what you want. All I hear is:

    UCI: We will investigate this way.

    WADA: You're not the boss of me.

    UCI: Well, you're not the boss of me.

    If you see anything but a simple turf war - it's your hopes.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.