The revenge of Rasmussen ... - Page 7 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 11-12-12, 05:51
Galic Ho's Avatar
Galic Ho Galic Ho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkvW View Post
Have you been following any of the news about the accounts "guaranteed" by the UCI? I'm not sure that you can rely on the "guarantee" of the UCI.

One of the stories I remember was from Floyd and his experience with the Mercury team (related in Kimmage's long interview). The other came from an Australian team within the last year or so.
Last I heard that was one of the few things you could trust was solid and factual coming from the UCI. This site in an article last year said Ernst and Young had to verify the numbers. You might have heard of them.

Are you talking about Pegasus? Yeah they had trouble getting the initial deposit. If you get the ok from the UCI, you have the money in the account and that is a proper checks and balance system signed off by the auditor Ernst and Young. Once that is done, the cash is in the account. Remember Astana had deposit problems?

Rabobank gave their word that the cash was there for next years funding despite them removing their name from the clothing. I have no doubt that money is there. The UCI most certainly make sure they get paid. It's their core motivation.

What the Italians have shown is how that money is used and deposited into illicit shadow companies run by guys like Ferrari is actually more the norm than even the skeptical would suspect. I believe the figure was deposits for riders salaries from 20 Pro Tour and Conti teams. And no, I don't think the Ernst and Young auditors looked that deep. If they did WADA would have a field day.

Rabobank have likely pulled sponsorship to limit liability. And I cannot blame them. They've helped many people and are getting burnt by a corrupt few at the top of the cash train, aka, the UCI overlords. And yes, I hope the Chicken gets some remuneration. People knew the deal, he was a scapegoat. Somebody didn't like him. He was no less deserving of winning the Tour than Contador. That was still the best Tour I've ever watched.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 11-12-12, 05:55
Galic Ho's Avatar
Galic Ho Galic Ho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler'sTwin View Post
Wow. To think that in 2006 on stage 17 Rasmussen pulled Menchov through the stage. How bad must they all have been? Man that makes them look clean that day. No wonder Floyd flogged them all so badly. Then there is the 2007 figures. Good old dynepo. Those were the days.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 11-12-12, 06:16
purcell purcell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 300
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Galic Ho View Post
Last I heard that was one of the few things you could trust was solid and factual coming from the UCI. This site in an article last year said Ernst and Young had to verify the numbers. You might have heard of them.

Are you talking about Pegasus? Yeah they had trouble getting the initial deposit. If you get the ok from the UCI, you have the money in the account and that is a proper checks and balance system signed off by the auditor Ernst and Young. Once that is done, the cash is in the account. Remember Astana had deposit problems?

Rabobank gave their word that the cash was there for next years funding despite them removing their name from the clothing. I have no doubt that money is there. The UCI most certainly make sure they get paid. It's their core motivation.

What the Italians have shown is how that money is used and deposited into illicit shadow companies run by guys like Ferrari is actually more the norm than even the skeptical would suspect. I believe the figure was deposits for riders salaries from 20 Pro Tour and Conti teams. And no, I don't think the Ernst and Young auditors looked that deep. If they did WADA would have a field day.

Rabobank have likely pulled sponsorship to limit liability. And I cannot blame them. They've helped many people and are getting burnt by a corrupt few at the top of the cash train, aka, the UCI overlords. And yes, I hope the Chicken gets some remuneration. People knew the deal, he was a scapegoat. Somebody didn't like him. He was no less deserving of winning the Tour than Contador. That was still the best Tour I've ever watched.
I think it's cute that you actually think an Audit Report means something in this context.

Especially a Swiss one done under IFRS.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 11-12-12, 15:01
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,184
Default

Former Rasmussen teammate Freiere rubs it in:

Freire: I never had suspicions about Armstrong

He concluded by admitting that one of the things he was most satisfied with about his career was being able to retire “when I wanted. That’s a really big thing for a cyclist.”

In other words: 'Hey guys, look, I got away with it!'

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-08-12, 19:54
snackattack snackattack is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 457
Default

Told u so `it gets nasty´ the bank's going over the F cliff.

New witnesses called in to testify including Rasmussen and van Heeswijk.

2 more very high profiled are scheduled on whom the Judges are still deliberating was told by chickens lawyer Brantjes today.

© AP
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-09-12, 10:37
snackattack snackattack is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 457
Default

Next day in court Tuesday december 18, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-09-12, 22:32
ferryman's Avatar
ferryman ferryman is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LostinFife
Posts: 2,177
Default

GH,

You have recently posted on another thread that misquoting out of context is against forum rules. It is but so is personal abuse. Please respect the rules.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-10-12, 23:50
Galic Ho's Avatar
Galic Ho Galic Ho is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,489
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by purcell View Post
I think it's cute that you actually think an Audit Report means something in this context.

Especially a Swiss one done under IFRS.
Ferryman, if my post was insulting so was purcell's by the tone. Do you actually know anything about auditing? What I originally posted, that purcell replied to, was the easiest thing about auditing to fathom. It was simple. If purcell can get the simplest thing completely wrong and mock me at the same time, even if it is a weak form of mockery, then a sarcastic reply is almost guaranteed in the real world. Do the mods expect us to sugar coat everything for the newbies? Whatever, I get your point but my reply was worded as it was because purcell's interpretation was a complete 180 turn on what was very simple and easy to recognise.

Purcell got the context and implication 100% wrong. Nobody mentioned jack about an audit report. It was clearly implied the physical scope of the audit was what mattered. And that means checking with a bank rec that the cash is in an account. Simplest thing in the world. Well for countries that have proper regulation systems in measure it is. Oh snap, that means the Swiss! Short story is, they are getting paid and it is very very simple to verify. Audit's are about guarantee, well the audit report is. It involves a qualitative report on quantifiable data, of which they take samples randomly (accounts, stock and inventory, payment schedules, etc). This is the one thing where they don't take a sample. They check the entire thing. Why? Because that is the chief aim with their role with the UCI and team analysis. There is no need for random sampling as this is about PAYMENT of SALARIES. So they check the physical account. Simple bank rec and it's either there or isn't. Same thing happened with Christina Watches this last week. Had an issue with the paperwork, needed to clarify money was there, the delay was getting the bank to confirm the cash was in the account. But purcell should know this if he/she knew anything about auditing. Same theory at play, different example.

BTW IFRS is irrelevant in this context. So why mention it? And the real sinker, is that purcell was laughing at the Swiss. Look at Europe economically and financially. The only people anyone should be taking seriously above and beyond anyone else in Europe ATM is the Swiss and Germans. If I need to spell out why, then it's beyond a person, because they clearly count using their fingers and toes. That isn't being mean or discriminatory, it's calling a spade a spade in this current economic climate. Some countries are run better than others and a lot of that comes down to accounting and financial regulation. Ask the Americans about that and the GFC. Swiss Businesses have good reps for a reason.

If that still doesn't make sense, then ask Rabo and the Dutch after this case who advised them to do what they did to the Chicken. If that person is still in employment, they won't be for much longer. The UCI want money. They get that through the teams and sponsorship and they make damn well sure it is in the bank before you get accredited and rubber stamped. If Ernst and Young say the cash is there, then their word should be taken, not joked about like purcell's post implies. EY don't employ idiots. I know. FWIW I don't like a lot of the history behind Swiss banking, but their business is the UCI's purpose for existing. Also look at the UCI headquarters. They probably just shopped around the town for a reliable business to check accounts. Not hard to find in Switzerland.

This is all basic auditing theory. Not hard to fathom if you've studied it. I have, has purcell?

Last edited by Galic Ho; 12-11-12 at 00:07.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-17-12, 19:50
snackattack snackattack is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 457
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snackattack View Post
Next day in court Tuesday december 18, 2012
up........
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-17-12, 20:35
sniper sniper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snackattack View Post
up........
have been following your occasional updates with interest, snackattack.
qs: what do you/can we expect from this case in terms of salient information leaking into the press?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:11.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.