Updates are continuous, check back often.

As we reported last week, Floyd Landis was asked to retract certain hurtful things he said about Hein Verbruggen, Pat McQuaid, and the UCI or face a lawsuit. Since then he and his lawyer Chade O. Grey of Grey Manrod Associates have been trying to reach the aggrieved parties to negotiate such a retraction, but have been stonewalled. Landis asked us to post his emails so the world, if not Messrs. Verbruggen and McQuaid, can appreciate his remorsefulness.

On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:15 AM, Chade Grey wrote:

Mr. Landis,

As we discussed last night I am informing Mr. Rolf Ditesheim of your intention to have me represent me in this matter with the UCI.  Thank you for the confidence and please do not contact Mr. Ditesheim further without my counsel.

Thank You

Mr. Grey

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:21 AM, floyd landis wrote:

Dear Mr. Grey,

I have been SUED(!) by the UCI and I had a lawyer who was writing to Mr. Dietzinhiem but he never responded to that lawyer so I emailed him and now I’m confused. Mr Dietzenheim responded to me by saying that my previous lawyer refused to retraction and that’s not what I want and then yesterday I was very upset and I fell down the stairs and bashed my head against the wall(!!!)

Please help me.

Floyd

On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:30 AM, Chade Grey wrote:

Mr Ditesheim,

Please be understanding of Mr Landis’s current mental state as he seems to have suffered some sort of trauma. He has informed me of his intention to fully cooperate with the UCI and issue a retraction. Can you please indicate in writing which part of his statement is untrue and what you would like the retraction to say. Also please provide all evidence that the UCI has available to support your assertion that these statements are untrue. We look forward to a swift resolution to this matter as I see that it has been damaging to both parties.

Thank You,
Chade O. Grey

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:47 AM, floyd landis wrote:
Mr Grey,

I have a terrible headache and I can’t hear good(!!!) what time is it? Is there any way it would be possible then to sue these people for the punitive damages that I’m experiencing here?

I need help!

On Feb 17, 2011, at 7:53 AM, Chade Grey wrote:

Mr. Landis,

Please do your best to relax. I am hopeful that I will receive some correspondence from the UCI today so we can begin the process of resolving this matter that is causing you so much anxiety.

Chade

From: chade.o.grey@greymanrod.com
Subject: Thoughts
Date: February 18, 2011 12:41:06 AM EST
To: richard.t.manrod@greymanrod.com, Rolf Ditesheim, Philippe.verbiest@xxxxx.be, hein.verbruggen@xxxxxx.com
Cc: floyd landis

Dear Sirs,

I’m finally back in my NY office and able to access my corporate email account so I’ll take this opportunity to let you know that I represent Mr. Landis in the matter referenced in your recent emails received by him. I hope we can establish a relationship in order to bring this matter to a swift conclusion.

In the interim, while I await your response to my earlier emails I’d like to hear your thoughts on this article: http://road.cc/content/news/31095-pat-mcquaid-comes-praise-lance-armstrong-not-bury-him-texan-retires

As I suggested before, please let me know which part of Mr. Landis’ statements were untrue and provide evidence to support your assertion.

Also my colleagues at the firm will be corresponding with you on this matter as you’ll see by our website greymanrod.com that I am very busy dealing with fortune 500 companies and don’t have too much time to take on this matter. Please expect to hear from them as well.

Chade O. Grey

From: floyd landis 
Subject: Retraction
Date: February 19, 2011 11:38:13 AM EST
To: Rolf Ditesheim 
Cc: Andy Shen, hein.verbruggen@xxxxxx.com, philippe.verbiest@xxxx.be

Hi,

I retractioned all of the mean things I said about you guys but nobody wants to print it(!!!!!!) I’m so UPSET!!!

Also Mr Hein, a few months ago you told me to go to a psychiatrist and I DID and it was helping but now I’m being SUED and I’m terribly upset again. Please send me some books to read??

Can you please tell me if any of you guys are NOT lawyers!

From: chade.o.grey@greymanrod.com
Subject: RE: Thoughts
Date: February 19, 2011 11:24:33 AM EST
To: McQuaid Pat – UCI 
Cc: floyd landis, richard.t.manrod@greymanrod.com, Rolf Ditesheim, Philippe.verbiest, hein.verbruggen

Mr Mcquaid,

Please advise me on weather or not you still intend to bring a defamation lawsuit and if so if you still intend to have Mr. Ditesheim represent you on this matter. I’m having difficulty extracting a response from Mr. Ditesheim and so I’ll include in this query some questions that I have. I had offered to write a retraction on behalf of my client, Mr Landis, and I’m only left to assume that the offer for us to retract no longer stands in light of my inability to communicate with your counsel.

Questons:

In defending your "honour" do you intendh to present evidence that you indeed have any of what you call "honour"?

In this article: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/feb/16/cycling-leaders-threaten-to-sue-floyd-landis/ you state that it is unacceptable what he says when referring to my client. Do you mean that it is untrue or that you just don’t enjoy hearing the truth?

Is your assertion that the claims of my client, stating that the UCI protects riders, meant to state that the wild inconsistencies in the way the UCI treats riders is a result of carelessness and not by design?

When Pat Mcquaid praised the career of Lance Armstrong after his retirement had he forgotten about the payoff that the UCI received money to hide his positive tests?

Are we to believe that the UCI was completely unaware of Lance Armstrong’s positive testosterone tests that were covered up by Don Caitlin?

If all of that went unnoticed by the two of you do you believe that you are competent to continue managing the UCI?

If we don’t receive any answers to these questions we will of course make an adverse inference and issue a press statement claiming adverse answers to all of those questions and attribute them to you.

Thank You,
Floyd Landis

From: floyd landis 
Subject: Are you OK?
Date: February 20, 2011 1:35:13 AM EST
To: hein.verbruggen, philippe.verbiest, Rolf Ditesheim 

Mr Diteshit,

Please tell me who has taken over this case now that you are no longer representing your "principles" so that I can ask them what to retract.

Floyd

this is more serious than ever

From: Floyd landis 
Subject: Grey Manrod litigation(??)
Date: February 20, 2011 9:34:43 AM EST
To: Rolf Ditesheim, philippe.verbiest, hein.verbruggen
Cc: Andy Shen

Mr Ditshit,

Please forgive me for all of the confusion now I’m sure you don’t understand but I’ll try to explain. When I received your first email two weeks ago I thought you wanted me to retraction and I got sad but now I read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49173811/mcquaidinterview and now I realize that you were telling me that your "principles" were going to retraction(!!!!!)

You must be a very important lawyer in Swizerland since Mr. Pat followed your request and retrakted before your deadline do you think you could help me sue Grey Manrod and Associates for charging me too many dollars? before I said I could pay 500 Franks but I recently came into some money late last night as I was walking through the MacDonalds drive through. You wouldn’t believe(!!!!!) how much change all the rich people drop at the window and don’t get out to pick it up!! I spent some of it on some French (??) fries but I still have quite a bit left. I hid it in the handle of the grocery cart because I don’t currently have a safe but maybe I could put it in a basket and mail it to you. Do you have coke machines in your country where you could spend it? (Do you use coke, even?) Another thing is I spent a little of your money on a lottery ticket and it didn’t win this time but I’ll include that in the basket because maybe (?? way far in the future) it will be the WINNING number!! Do you think you could mail me a check to help cover the shipping costs? Do you use checks in your country? Please bring the check with you when you fly here next week to discuss our Grey Manrod litigation.

This has all been a big misunderstanding

Where can I send flowers for My Vrebuggen?

Your FAVORITE client,
Floyd Landis

From: floyd landis 
Date: February 20, 2011 11:38:03 AM EST
To: Rolf Ditesheim 

Mr Dipshïzza

Please read these two articles and tell me which one is true so I can say what you want me to say in the future. I’m still confused.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/mcquaid-%E2%80%98cycling-is-bigger-than-armstrong-landis-contador%E2%80%99_156216

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49173811/mcquaidinterview

Floyd

From: sigmund.a.manrod@greymanrod.com
Subject: To your attention: Mr. McQuaid states "what went on in those years is probably true"
Date: February 20, 2011 12:56:22 PM EST
To: chade.o.grey@greymanrod.com, ditesheim
Cc: pat.mcquaid@uci.ch, hein.verbruggen, Philippe.verbiest, tristan.t.zook@greymanrod.com, richard.t.manrod@greymanrod.com, harold.x.manrod@greymanrod.com

Mr. Ditesheim,

I have heard concerns expressed that my colleagues have been unsuccessfully attempting to reach you on several points of clarification. If this email finds you working to respond, perhaps you can prioritize my following concerns, and might they prompt you to reconsider the current willingness of your clients to seek legal remedy against Mr. Floyd Landis.

Point 1:

Mr. Pat McQuaid exclaimed that "I don’t believe a lot of what he says. He’s done a lot of damage to the sport and he continues to do so,”

Dated 20 Jan, 2011, Interweb link: http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/news/mcquaid-%E2%80%98cycling-is-bigger-than-armstrong-landis-contador%E2%80%99_156216

Primary question: Could Mr. McQuaid please verify which portion of Landis’ public comments he does not believe?

Secondary question: Could Mr. McQuaid quantify "a lot" of damage to cycling?

Point 2:

Mr. Pat McQuaid exclaimed that "It’s impossible to be corrupt in the way we’re being accused, in terms of bribery and assisting riders cover up doping positives,"… "We’d welcome any investigation into the UCI. There has never been corruption in the UCI."

Dated 02 Feb 2011, Interweb link: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-there-has-never-been-corruption-in-the-uci

Primary question: Could we have a clarification as to the suggestion that there may be other way that the UCI could be corrupt?

Secondary question: Will Pat McQuaid repeat his claim that there has "never been corruption in the UCI" under oath during the current US Federal investigation?

Tertiary question: McQuaid proclaims they’d "welcome any investigation into the UCI". I would suggest the use of Grey Manrod Associates Forensic Auditing Department. We are almost set to hire our specialist in this field. Let’s arrange for a meeting on this topic as we’d appreciate being able to start right away. I assume Mr. McQuaid is being "honoruable" in his statement and offer to allow the investigation.

Point 3:

Mr. McQuaid exclaims that "I took over here in 2005, and certainly since I became president, I can vouch for the fact there has been no corruption in the UCI,"

Dated 08 Feb 2011 edition of Cycling Weekly magazine. Interweb link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49173811/mcquaidinterview

Priamry question: Since this is a departure from the previous comment that there has "never been corruption in the UCI", is Mr. McQuaid now only making the claim that bribery may/may not have taken place before his tenure as UCI President?

Secondary question: Since this still leaves to question the manner of corruption, and we reserve our right to define corruption in a way consistent with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. ("FCPA"), can we assume that UCI constitutional bylaws, and all records requiring committee votes, transactions, payments, salaries, bonuses, petty cash, operational expenses and other line-item costs and expenses incurred by the UCI regarding such "acts" will be available during our Forensic Audit? If the use of Grey Manrod Associates Forensic Accounting Department is not accepted, would the UCI be willing to engage with the US Federal Bureau of Investigation to perform such an audit? We would be happy to facilitate such an engagement.

Point 4:

Mr. McQuaid exclaims that "Unfortunately my initial reaction to someone like that is to discredit them because I don’t accept individuals that do that type of thing".
"Nothing he (Landis) has said to my mind has been anything that can genuinely help the sport".

Dated 08 Feb 2011 edition of Cycling Weekly magazine. Interweb link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49173811/mcquaidinterview

Primary question: How can Mr. McQuaid’s behavior, where he admits that his standard reaction is to discredit (attack ones honour), be consistent with the IOC etihcs rules, and the UCI ethics rules on this subject?

Secondary question: How can Mr. McQuaid dismisses the usefulness of Landis’ detail about doping, when Dr. Michael Ashenden, a primary and founding member of the UCI Bio-Passport scientific panel, said "Landis has probably provided a key piece of the puzzle that has vexed him and his peers for a long time." (from 26 May, 2010 Interweb link: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=5222488)?

Point 5:

Mr. McQuaid exclaims that "A lot of the stuff he says in relation to what went on in those years is probably true," admitted McQuaid. "But by the same token, he’s very fond of zoning in on people and accusing them of things with absolutely no corroboration".

Dated 08 Feb 2011 edition of Cycling Weekly magazine. Interweb link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49173811/mcquaidinterview

Primary question: Now that Mr. McQuaid admits that Mr. Landis’ "stuff" is "probably true", and in light of his admittance that his standard reaction is to impugn the honour of the individual making an allegation, can we consider this to be a "Retraction" of the previously derogatory comments, or would Mr. McQuaid be willing to issue a more formal and direct retraction that we can work with you to craft?

Secondary question: Since the current comments of Mr. McQuaid are a radical and direct contradiction of the previous comments regarding the "stuff" that Landis has conveyed on the record, can we assume that the "UCI and Mr. Verburgggen share these feelings, and that there will be a retraction coming forthwith by them?

Tertiary question: If Mr. McQuaid now concedes that the "stuff" that Mr. Landis has conveyed is "probably true", in what manner can true statements be used to attack and damage the "honour" of the UCI, Mr. Pat McQuaid and Mr. Hein Verbruggen? Furthermore, how can public figures such as Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Verbruggen be damaged by true statements?

Point 6:

Mr. McQuaid exclaims in reference to statements attacking the "honour" of Mr. Landis and his motive being revenge, "If I said that some months ago, then that statement stands today,".

Dated 02 Feb 2011, Intereweb link: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-there-has-never-been-corruption-in-the-uci

Primary question: As now Mr. McQuaid has conceded that the "stuff" that Mr. Landis has conveyed is "probably true", are we to still follow Mr. McQuaid’s seemingly flippant mention that things he says in the past will be stood by today, despite this being a direct contradiction?

Secondary question: If Mr. McQuaid is now allowing for changes to his position and public statement, can you please indicate which part of his "honour" still remains damaged?

Tertiary question: If there still remains some damage, what form is this damage? Please provide documentation as to this damage.

Mr. Ditesheim, the previous letter sent by you, dated 07 Feb 2011 requires a retraction by Mr. Landis. It sets a 15-day window for such a retraction to be submitted. Given the points listed above which detail the fundamental concession that Mr. Landis’ statements are "probably true", the established fact that Mr. McQuaid and Mr. Verbruggen are public figures, and that Article 17 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires the predicate of "unlawful attack" to be the basis for legal recourse, we feel that Mr. Landis has acted in a "lawful" manner at all times since he has disclosed his previous behaviours, has told the truth (as accepted by Mr. McQuaid). We consider the threat of any further legal action against him by your clients to be baseless and frivolous, serving the sole purpose of chilling his voice as it relates to his truthful comments to the media, and further exposure of truths about many facets of professional cycling during this period.

It is public knowledge that Mr. Landis has cooperated with the US Food and Drug Administration in providing his eye-witness accounts and conveyed his truthful knowledge of doping during his cycling career. For your information, providing false statements to the US Food and Drug Administration in the course of an investigation carries with it severe penalties. Mr. Landis maintains that he proffered his truthful recollections to the authorities. Mr. Landis understand his responsibility to tell the truth in this matter, and given the radical and direct contradiction of previously made statements by Mr. McQuaid, it is encouraging to see that they, too, understand the import of coming to terms with the truth in the matter.

Please feel free to answer the above questions. In the absence of your direct answers and given the consideration of Mr. McQuaid’s current concession that Mr. Landis’ statements are "probably true", we will consider this to be closure to this matter.

Finest regards,

Sigmund A. Manrod

From: chade.o.grey@greymanrod.com
Subject: Vegetable Rights(??)
Date: February 21, 2011 9:04:57 PM EST
To: stefano.mancuso

Mr. Mancuso,

We are a well respected NY firm of Power of Attorney’s and although vegetable rights is not our main focus we are working on a high profile case in which a "disgraced" champion athlete was defiled with a giant zucchini by the international governing body of the sport for violating their code of ethics. While we are currently only representing the athlete, we believe that the zucchini has an equally strong case and in order to win such a case we would need an expert such as yourself. We have analyzed the speech you gave at Oxford (http://www.ted.com/talks/stefano_mancuso_the_roots_of_plant_intelligence.html 😉 a year ago and would be interested in speaking with you if you are interested. Please consider and give us a call when you have a minute.

Chade O. Grey