Recent content by Velocentric

Yes, actually. Hopefully on camera. I don't see why that should be an issue for him in his quest for transparency and to calm the baying bloggers ;)

I guess Botany Bay has a point. There's no guarantee that Pat will agree to an interview or to even allow me to spend the day in the UCI offices. Would be fun catching him out in yet another lie though, wouldn't it?

That's the plan! I want to capture the stony silence and grumpy stares when he's asked questions by an upstart blogger on behalf of Forum members :)

Some good questions being raised. As for how it's going to be done - No. There will be no Moore style turning up in a Chicken suit to 'bust' them. Although, it is tempting. Trying to arrange a firm date at the moment that will allow an interview with McQuaid to happen.

After McQuaids open invitation to spend a day watching the UCI operate at their headquarters I've decided to take him up on it. One of my aims of the visit is to get a sit down interview with Pat which can be filmed and published in all its uncut, awkward silence, "no comment" glory. This...

You know what I find most telling about the 'Catlin Perspective'? The fact its only existed since September 2010 - right about the time Novitzky started handing out subpoenas. Someone perhaps knowing they were about to be called upon to justify themselves and trying to get some public...

You forget that for the Pro-Lancers there is no such thing as a valid question or topic.

To be fair LAF did get a very good price for the building as they promised to help regenerate the area with their presence. However, when you consider how much this Charity brings in every year I do think (compared to other groups within the same field) that this was a very over the top...

When I spoke with the SI writer liaison before the article went public last week I was told they had no interest in Livestrong and were purely looking into the doping and Novitzky thing. I realise that the piece went (slightly) beyond that but the conversation I had gave the distinct impression...

I appreciate that, but now what about the "beneficially owned" stocks which weren't mentioned before appearing on the 12th Jan filing and then don't appear in the Jan 24th filing?

Skipping over the vanishing "beneficially owned" stock for now and just sticking to the warrants issue: In the 2010 filing Lance was shown as having been issued with warrants for 1,062,500 shares at $6/share. In the January 24th filing Lance now holds warrants for 531,250 shares at $12/share...

Can they do that with the warrants they issued as part of a contractual agreement back in 2008?

There are a total of 7 amended S1-A's filed with the SEC (click here) I'm going to have to go over each one comparing the details to see exactly what changes have been made. At 200 pages a piece that's going to take me a few days. IPO is slated for next week, anyone got a few hours to spare...

It gets worse. Demand also have an amended S1-A (click here) filed today which SUBSTANTIALLY changes the way Lance Armstrongs involvement with the company appears. They've halved his warrants, doubled the costs, allocated "Beneficially held" stocks and then removed them in a matter of 2 weeks...

Thank you for linking to the later S-1. First looked directly at the pages you reference and you're right with your figures. I've printed it off and will go over the whole thing now. I'm no expert in this either but isn't what they've done here illegal? These warrants were issued as part of a...